Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

I. Introduction As Figure 1 shows, Germany’s share of world GDP has declined from 6.99% in 1980 to 2.89% in 2025. Germany, which had been considered to be Europe’s economic powerhouse in previous decades, became the worst-performing major economy in 2023 with a 0.9% contraction, followed by another 0.5% contraction in 2024, leading to a recession. Several economists and business figures expressed concerns that Germany’s economic downturn could cause the country to reclaim its reputation as the “sick man of Europe” from the 1990s. [1] Economists argue that the German economy was in a permanent crisis mode, while the Handelsblatt Research Institute declared that it was in its “greatest crisis in post-war history” after projecting a third consecutive year of recession in 2025. [2]  Figure 1: Germany’s share of world GDP (based on PPP)  As Figure 2 shows, GDP in the United Kingdom in Q3 2025 was 5.2% above its pre-pandemic level of Q4 2019. This compares with Euro-zone GDP being 6.5% higher, with GDP in Germany up by 0.1% (the lowest among G7 economies). The United States has the highest GDP growth among G7 economies over this period at 13.3% (as of Q2 2025).  Figure 2: G7 nations’ GDP growth (source: OECD) With this information in background, this paper explores why the German economy has underperformed and fallen behind. This paper first describes the current economic situation of Germany and explains why the German economy has failed. II. Current economic situations of Germany The German economy has been sluggish. As Figure 3 shows, the average GDP growth rate in Germany during the 2013-2023 period was only 1.1%. And Germany experienced a 0.9% contraction in 2023 and a 0.5% contraction in 2024.  Figure 3: Average GDP growth rate in Germany, 2013-2024 In addition, as Figure 4 shows, the unemployment rate in Germany has recently increased following the Ukraine war. The unemployment rate dropped from 6.2% in January 2016 to 5% in January 2020, but then it rose following the Ukraine war in 2022. Unemployment rate increased from 5% in March 2022 to 5.6% in March 2023 and 6.3 % in December 2025.  Figure 4: Unemployment rate in Germany, 2016-2025 (source: Bundesagentur für Arbeit) Rising energy prices have been a main factor causing serious problems for the German economy. As Figure 5 shows, gasoline price in Germany has increased following the Ukraine war. Gasoline price in Germany averaged 1.73 USD/Liter from 1995 until 2025, but it reached an all-time high of 2.36 USD/Liter in May 2022. Gasoline price declined to 2.05 USD/Liter in December 2025, but it is still higher compared to the previous decade.  Figure 5: Gasoline price in Germany (source: Trading Economics) Moreover, fiscal imbalance has been a big problem for Germany. As Figure 6 shows, consolidated fiscal balance in Germany recorded a huge deficit in the 2020s. The deficit recorded $49,542 billion in January 2023 and $46,923 billion in September 2025, compared with an average of $13,425 billion from March 1991 to September 2025. Figure 6: Germany’s consolidated fiscal balance (source: CEIC Data) As a result, as Figure 7 shows, the German government’s debt as a % of GDP significantly increased in the 2020s. The German government’s debt reached an all-time high of 81% in December 2010 and then declined until 2019, but it started to increase from 2020. The German government’s debt as a % of GDP increased to 65.2% in October 2022.  Figure 7: Government debt in Germany: % of GDP (source: CEIC Data) Investment is a key to economic growth in every country. As Figure 8 shows, overall private investment in Germany has declined in the 2020s, particularly during the period of 2022-2024 after the Ukraine War. In addition, as Figure 9 shows, total government net investment in Germany has declined in the 2020s.  Figure 8: Private investment in Germany, 2010-2024 (Source: ECB, Eurostat, Destatis and European Commission calculations)  Figure 9: Government net investment in Germany, 2010-2024 (Source: ECB, Eurostat, Destatis and European Commission calculations) Reflecting Germany’s recent sluggish economy, as Figure 10 shows, the German manufacturing industry’s business expectation has been negative over the period of 2022-2025 after the Ukraine war.  Figure 10: German manufacturing industry’s business expectation III. Causes of the failure of German economy Why has the German economy failed? Germany’s economic decline can be attributed to multiple factors. The first factor is the energy crisis or energy policy in Germany. Economists cited Germany’s overreliance on cheap Russian gas as one of many primary factors for Germany’s economic stagnation. Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as Figure 11 shows, 56% of Russia’s gas exports went to Germany. This caused German industry and the broader economy to become dependent on cheap Russian energy.  Figure 11: Russia’s gas exports in 2021 Germany’s phasing out of its established network of nuclear power, a process initiated and led by the Greens and ultimately enforced by the second Merkel government, increased Germany’s dependency on Russian energy. The German government’s decision to phase out its nuclear power was influenced by the high-profile Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011. Until March 2011, Germany obtained one-quarter of its electricity from nuclear energy, using 17 reactors. The following gap after phasing out of its established network of nuclear power was primarily filled by Russian natural gas, inadvertently increasing dependency on Russian energy. Despite early leadership in renewable energy adoption, Germany’s transition has been hampered by antiquated bureaucratic obstacles, complicated and slow processes for approving projects for renewable energy, and local resistance to infrastructure projects, each discouraging further investment in renewable sectors. As of 2024, renewable sources accounted for just over 52% of the country’s electricity supply, insufficient to meet industrial demands. Germany’s dependency on Russian gas became a vulnerability following the Ukraine War in 2022. The abrupt disruption of Russian energy forced Germany to rapidly diversify its energy sources, leading to a 32.6% reduction in gas imports by 2023. The subsequent sanctions against Russia and supply disruptions led to a 32% increase in Germany’s energy prices, contributing to economic instability and decline. As Figure 12 shows, energy consumer price in Germany skyrocketed in the 2020s following the Ukraine War. Energy consumer price in Germany increased 32% in September 2022 compared to the previous year.  Figure 12: Energy consumer price in Germany (source: OECD) Although energy consumer price in Germany significantly dropped in 2024 and has stabilized afterwards, the damage to industrial competitiveness has been lasting. Energy-intensive industries such as chemicals and metals have shrunk, forcing businesses to either cut production or relocate abroad, thereby contributing to economic decline. The second factor related to the sluggish economy of Germany is the under-development of the tech industry in Germany. Some experts argued that Germany’s economic troubles were partly due to its slow adaptation to technological advancements and shifting to low-productivity sectors, contributing to declining productivity. [3] This issue is about Germany’s insufficient investment in new technologies (computers, artificial intelligence (AI), software, etc.) and the low level of spending on research and development (R&D), compared to other advanced countries such as the US. When we compare OECD countries, we see that these two components have a strong influence on productivity differences between countries. The econometric estimate leads to the following effects: a 1-point increase in the rate of investment in new technologies leads to a 0.8 point increase per year in productivity gains. In a similar way, a 1 point increase in GDP for R&D expenditure leads to a 0.9 point increase per year in productivity gains. [4] As Figure 13 shows, gross domestic spending on R&D as a % of GDP in Germany in 2023 was higher than in many EU countries, but lower than in its Western rivals such as the US, Israel, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland.  Figure 13: Gross domestic spending on R&D as a % of GDP, 2023 Moreover, weak investment in public infrastructure and digitalization has further weakened Germany’s IT sectors. As Figure 14 shows, Germany has long underinvested in public infrastructure, ranking near the bottom among advanced economies in public investment levels.  Figure 14: gross public investment in OECD countries, 2018-2022 (source: IMF) As a result, as Figure 15 shows, there are no German tech firms among the global top 10 most valuable unicorns. The US and China lead the category of global tech unicorns.  Figure 15: Global top 10 Unicorns (source: https://www.hurun.co.uk/hurun-global-unicorn-index-2025#:~:text=In%20contrast%20to%20the%20UK's,the%20US%20and%20China%2C%20including The third factor related to the sluggish economy of Germany is the demographics. As Figure 16 shows, the working-age population in Germany has declined, while old people over 65 have significantly increased.  Figure 16: Age group in Germany (source: UN, World Population Prospects & Financial Times) The IMF posited that the fundamental structural challenges for Germany are accelerating population aging. The country’s working-age population, which had been declining over the three decades, was projected to decline sharply as baby boomers retired. As Figure 17 shows, Germany’s working-age population growth is the lowest among G7 countries. This demographic shift in Germany is expected to decrease GDP per capita, further hinder productivity growth, and cause increased demand for healthcare, potentially forcing workers to go into healthcare away from other sectors.  Figure 17: Working-age population growth, G7 economies (source: IMF) Under this circumstance, shorter working hours increasingly constrain Germany’s labor supply, thereby reducing economic growth. As Figure 18 shows, employees in Germany work shorter hours on average than in any other OECD country.  Figure 18: Employees in Germany work shorter hours on average than in any other OECD country Another issue related to the demographics is the size of the welfare state in Germany. As Figure 19 shows, Germany’s public social spending has expanded and is now at record level. As Figure 20 shows, Germany spent around 30% of its GDP on welfare and social benefits in 2024, placing it among the largest welfare states in Europe, as well as in the world.  Figure 19: German social welfare spending is at record levels, excluding the Covid-19 pandemic (source: OECD, Financial Times)  Figure 20: Welfare and social spending as a % of GDP in 2024 (Source: Eurostat (2024) Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson (1998) showed empirically that as the size of general government spending has almost doubled on average in OECD countries from 1960 to 1996, their real GDP growth rates have dropped by almost two thirds on average (see Figure 21). According to them, as public social spending goes up, GDP growth goes down.  Figure 21: High government spending reduces growth Moreover, any increase in welfare costs automatically leads to an increase in non-wage labor costs for employers. Under German law, employers are obliged to cover half of their employees’ insurance contributions. Since the end of the Covid-19 pandemic, as Figure 22 shows, non-wage labor costs have risen at a faster rate than total wages, eating into companies’ profits and reducing the room for wage increases, thereby lowering economic growth.  Figure 22: Costs other than wages have started to make up a greater share of employers’ labor spending (source: Bundesbank & Financial Times) The fourth factor related to the sluggish economy of Germany is exports. Exports have been a driving force for Germany for a long time, but the year-on-year (YoY) exports growth rate indicates a decline over the 2023-25 period after the Ukraine War, as Figure 23 shows.  Figure 23: Year-on-year (YoY) exports growth rate in Germany (source: MacroMicro) In addition, German export performance against global competitors has not been so good, as Figure 24 shows. It was so bad in the 2020s.  Figure 24: Germany’s export performance against global competitors (source: Deutsche Bank Research & OECD) IV. Conclusion This paper showed that the German economy has been in big trouble with sluggish economic growth. This paper explained that the failure of the German economy can be attributed to an energy crisis, as well as underdevelopment of tech industry, a shrinking working-age population and shortest working hours of employees, a large size of welfare state, and sluggish exports. References [1] Germany, which had been considered to be Europe’s economic powerhouse in prior decades, became the worst-performing global major economy in 2023 with a 0.9% contraction, followed by further 0.5% contraction in 2024 leading to recession. [2] Partington, Richard (15 January 2024). "Germany on track for two-year recession as economy shrinks in 2023". The Guardian. [3] Fletcher, Kevin; Kemp, Harri; Sher, Galen (27 March 2024). "Germany's Real Challenges are Aging, Underinvestment, and Too Much Red Tape". International Monetary Fund. [4] https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/economy/economy-why-europe-is-falling-behind-the-usa/

On 3 January 2026, the US carried out a surprise military operation in Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The US has made little effort to cloak its operation in either solidarist language, such as appeals to democracy promotion, human rights, or liberal peacebuilding – or in pluralist rhetoric emphasizing the preservation of international order. Instead, Washington has presented the action in largely instrumental and strategic terms, signalling a willingness to sidestep both dominant justificatory traditions within international society. While Maduro and Flores are charged with narco-terrorism conspiracy and cocaine importation conspiracy, international debates focus on the future of Venezuela’s oil (Poque González 2026). On 7 January administration officials said the US plans to effectively assume control over the sale of Venezuela’s oil “indefinitely” (Sherman 2026) and President Donald Trump confirmed that he expected the US to run Venezuela, insisting that the country’s interim government was “giving us everything that we feel is necessary” (Sanger et al. 2026). Attention is fixed not only on Washington’s plans for Venezuela’s oil sector and control over its export revenues, but also on the replies from Moscow and Beijing, Maduro’s chief foreign backers and heavyweight players in energy politics. Consequently, this article asks two questions. First, to what extent does American control of Venezuelan oil threaten China’s and Russia’s energy interests? Second, what does the resulting US–China–Russia triangle imply for how energy security itself is being redefined? A constructivist perspective, recognizes that oil is an idea—valuable not only because it burns but because control over it symbolizes power and authority (Kuteleva 2021). Thus, when the US claims the right to supervise Venezuelan oil revenues, it is not only increasing leverage over barrels, but asserting the authority to define legitimate energy exchange itself. In this context, while the material threat is limited for China and already largely sunk for Russia, the symbolic, institutional and political threat is profound. A straightforward constructivist interpretation of the US–China–Russia triangle centres on status. China had cultivated Venezuela as an “all-weather strategic partnership” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC 2025b) and major debtor, only to watch Maduro captured days after senior Chinese officials visited Caracas (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC 2025a). In constructivist terms, this is an obvious status injury: China appeared present but powerless. China’s energy diplomacy had functioned as proof of its global influence, and the nullification of China’s energy ties with Venezuela by US force undermines China’s narrative as a protective patron for the Global South. Beijing accused Washington of “hegemonic thinking” (Liu and Chen 2026), “bullying” (Global Times 2026a), and violating Venezuelan sovereignty and “the rights of the Venezuelan people” (Global Times 2026b). This strong pluralist language is not incidental—it is a bid to reclaim moral authority and redefine the event as norm-breaking rather than capability-revealing. Similarly, Russia’s involvement in Venezuela was never purely economic. Moscow saw the alliance with Venezuela as a way to advance its anti-American agenda and to signal that it could cultivate allies in Washington’s traditional backyard (Boersner Herrera and Haluani 2023; Gratius 2022; Herbst and Marczak 2019). It used Venezuela as leverage against the US, subsidised the regime during periods of domestic recession, and framed support as proof of great-power reliability. As senior Russian executives put it, “economic considerations took a back seat to political goals of taking swipes at the US” (Seddon and Stognei 2026). US control of Venezuelan oil thus removes a symbolic platform on which Russia enacted its identity as an energy superpower and geopolitical spoiler. While Russia continues loud sovereignty talk, its demonstrated incapacity to protect partners pushes it toward opportunistic bargaining (“concert” deals, see Lemke 2023) rather than overt defense of UN-pluralist restraint. As such, Dmitry Medvedev (2026) bluntly claimed that the US special military operation in Venezuela all but justifies Russia’s own actions in Ukraine. Venezuela is not a core supplier for China in volumetric terms. In 2025, Venezuelan exports to China averaged roughly 395,000 barrels per day—about 4% of China’s seaborne crude imports, according to Kpler data cited by the FT (Leahy and Moore 2026). China has diversified routes, strategic reserves covering at least 96 days of imports, and strong purchasing power in global markets (Downs 2025). Hence, from a narrow supply perspective, the loss of Venezuelan oil is manageable. That said, around one-fifth of China’s crude imports come from suppliers under US or western sanctions, primarily Iran, Venezuela and Russia, much of it disguised via transshipment near Malaysia (Downs 2025). Independent “teapot” refiners (Downs 2017)—who account for about a quarter of China’s refining capacity—are structurally dependent on this discounted, politically risky oil. Consequently, Trump’s seizure of Maduro alarmed China not mainly because of Venezuela itself, but because it demonstrated Washington’s capacity to escalate from sanctions to physical control of an energy sector, and thus potentially to Iran. Here, constructivism reveals the problem: “sanctioned oil” is not simply cheaper crude; it is a political category—oil marked as illegitimate by a dominant legal-financial order. The US move signals that this stigma can be converted into coercive authority, turning commercial vulnerability into geopolitical dependence. This reclassification transforms Chinese domestic actors into security subjects. “Teapot” refiners are no longer just businesses; they become strategic vulnerabilities whose survival depends on US tolerance. Analysis warn that a cutoff of Iranian oil could force many to shut down entirely (Leahy and Moore 2026). In this context, US control of Venezuelan oil reshapes Chinese energy security discourse from one of diversification and market access to one of hierarchy and exposure to political permission. Russia’s oil interests in Venezuela were largely written down years earlier. In 2020, Rosneft had sold most formal assets after pouring around $800m into loans and projects that produced little return (The Economist 2020). Much of the remaining exposure consisted of debts and shadow ownership arrangements. More important is the damage to Russia’s sanctions-evasion architecture. Russia had become the leading marketer of Venezuelan oil by trading crude as debt repayment and using banks partly owned by sanctioned Russian institutions, creating what the 2019 Atlantic Council report described as “a counter financial system to the one dominated by the West” (Herbst and Marczak 2019). The recent reporting on the US tracking a tanker linked to Venezuela, Russia and Iran illustrates how this counter-order is being contested operationally (Sheppard et al. 2026). The vessel sailed under false flags, was sanctioned for carrying Iranian oil, later re-registered under Russian jurisdiction, and became vulnerable to boarding under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea because it was “without nationality.” Such episodes show that energy security is increasingly constituted by maritime law, insurance rules, and surveillance practices. US control over Venezuelan oil expands this regime of enforcement, making Russia’s informal trading networks less viable. A constructivist approach suggests that American control of Venezuelan oil is best understood not as a supply shock, but as an act of social stratification in the international system. Energy markets have always been hierarchical, but the hierarchy was largely implicit: reserve currencies, shipping insurance, futures exchanges, and contract law already privileged Western institutions. What is new is the explicit performance of hierarchy—the public demonstration that a great power can redefine ownership, legality, and access through coercion and administrative authority. This produces a stratified energy order: First, rule-makers – states whose legal systems, sanctions regimes, and corporate actors define what counts as legitimate oil (primarily the US and its allies). Second, rule-takers – states whose energy security depends on access to these institutions (most importers). And third, rule-evaders – states forced into informal networks (Russia, Iran, Venezuela) whose energy becomes socially “tainted.” China occupies an unstable middle category: economically powerful but institutionally dependent. Venezuela’s takeover publicly signals that material power is insufficient without normative control over legality. Referencias Boersner Herrera, Adriana, and Makram Haluani. 2023. ‘Domestic and International Factors of the Contemporary Russo–Venezuelan Bilateral Relationship’. Latin American Policy 14 (3): 366–87. Downs, Erica. 2017. The Rise of China’s Independent Refineries. Geopolitics. Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, School of International and Public Affairs. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/rise-chinas-independent-refineries/. Downs, Erica. 2025. China’s Oil Demand, Imports and Supply Security. Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, School of International and Public Affairs. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/chinas-oil-demand-imports-and-supply-security/. Global Times. 2026a. ‘China Condemns US Demands for Venezuela to Partner Exclusively on Oil Production as “Bullying,” Breaches of Intl Law: FM – Global Times’. Global Times, January 7. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1352547.shtml. Global Times. 2026b. ‘China’s Legitimate Rights and Interests in Venezuela Must Be Safeguarded, Chinese FM Responds to Claim about US to Sell Venezuelan Sanctioned Oil – Global Times’. Global Times, January 7. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1352555.shtml. Gratius, Susanne. 2022. ‘The West against the Rest? Democracy versus Autocracy Promotion in Venezuela’. Bulletin of Latin American Research 41 (1): 141–58. Herbst, John E., and Jason Marczak. 2019. Russia’s Intervention in Venezuela: What’s at Stake? Policy Brief. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/russias-intervention-in-venezuela-whats-at-stake/. Kuteleva, Anna. 2021. China’s Energy Security and Relations with Petrostates: Oil as an Idea. Routledge. Leahy, Joe, and Malcolm Moore. 2026. ‘Donald Trump’s Venezuela Action Raises Threat for China’s Oil Supplies’. Oil. Financial Times, January 8. https://www.ft.com/content/f64826fa-5c36-4fb3-8621-ee0b9d9a1ff5. Lemke, Tobias. 2023. ‘International Relations and the 19th Century Concert System’. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Liu, Xin, and Qingqing Chen. 2026. ‘US Reportedly Sets Demands for Venezuela to Pump More Oil; Experts Say “Anti-Drug” Claims a Pretext, Exposing Neo-Colonialism – Global Times’. The Global Times, January 7. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1352544.shtml. Medvedev, Dmitry. 2026. ‘Год начался бурно’. Telegram, January 9. https://t.me/medvedev_telegram/626. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC. 2025a. ‘Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian’s Regular Press Conference on January 5, 2026’. January 5. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/fyrbt/202601/t20260105_11806736.html. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC. 2025b. ‘Xi Jinping Meets with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro Moros’. May 10. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyxw/202505/t20250513_11619919.html. Poque González, Axel Bastián. 2026. ‘Energy Security and the Revival of US Hard Power in Latin America’. E-International Relations, January 12. https://www.e-ir.info/2026/01/12/energy-security-and-the-revival-of-us-hard-power-in-latin-america/. Sanger, David E., Tyler Pager, Karie Rogers, and Zolan Kanno-Youngs. 2026. ‘Trump Says U.S. Oversight of Venezuela Could Last for Years’. U.S. The New York Times, January 8. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-venezuela.html. Seddon, Max, and Anastasia Stognei. 2026. ‘How Russia’s Venezuelan Oil Gambit Went Awry’. Venezuela. Financial Times, January 9. https://www.ft.com/content/e09a6030-325f-4be5-ace3-4d70121071cb. Sheppard, David, Chris Cook, and Jude Webber. 2026. ‘US Tracking Oil Tanker off UK Coast Linked to Venezuela, Russia and Iran’. Shipping. Financial Times, January 6. https://www.ft.com/content/a699169a-983a-4472-ab23-54bceb9dd2bd. The Economist. 2020. ‘Why Putin’s Favourite Oil Firm Dumped Its Venezuelan Assets’. The Economist, April 2. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/04/02/why-putins-favourite-oil-firm-dumped-its-venezuelan-assets.

Thank you dear Prime Minister Modi, for welcoming us on this special occasion. We were privileged yesterday to be your Chief Guests for the Republic Day celebrations, such an impressive display of India’s capabilities and diversity. Today is a historic moment. We are opening a new chapter in our relations – on trade, on security, on people to people ties. I am the President of the European Council, but I am also an overseas Indian citizen. Then, as you can imagine, for me, it has a special meaning. I am very proud of my roots in Goa, where my father’s family came from. The connection between Europe and India is something personal to me. Also, because we conclude today our trade negotiations, we relaunched at the Leaders’ meeting that I had the pleasure to host, in May 2021, in my previous capacity. Our summit sends a clear message to the world: at a time when the global order is being fundamentally reshaped, the European Union and India stand together as strategic and reliable partners. Today, we are taking our partnership to the next level. As the two largest democracies in the world, we are working hand in hand: • to deliver concrete benefits for our citizens; and • to shape a resilient global order that underpins peace and stability, economic growth, and sustainable development. I would like to share three messages. First: the European Union and India must work together towards our shared prosperity and security. India is the world's fastest-growing major economy. Trade has flowed between our two continents for centuries. Trade is a crucial geopolitical stabilizer. And a fundamental source of economic growth. Trade agreements reinforce rules-based economic order and promote shared prosperity. That’s why today’s Free Trade Agreement is of historic importance. One of the most ambitious agreements ever concluded. Creating a market of two billion people. In a multipolar world, the European Union and India are working together to grow spheres of shared prosperity. But prosperity does not exist without security: • strengthening our cooperation to better protect our citizens and our shared interests; • working together to counter the full range of security threats we face, in the Indo-Pacific, in Europe and around the world; • reaching a new level of strategic trust between us. That is the significance of our agreement on a Security and Defence Partnership. The first such overarching defence and security framework between India and the European Union. And the first step towards even more ambitious cooperation in the future. This brings me to my second message: as the world's largest democracies and champions of multilateralism, the European Union and India share the responsibility of upholding international law, with the United Nations Charter at its core. Earlier this morning, we had the opportunity to pay tribute to Mahatma Gandhi. And I reflected upon his words which still hold true today: “Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.” Our summit reaffirmed our commitment to supporting efforts towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine. One that fully respects Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is a key moment. We are supporting all efforts to reach a just and sustainable peace. Ukraine has shown its readiness, including at the cost of difficult compromises. I know, dear Prime Minister, that we can count on you to help create the conditions for peace, through dialogue and diplomacy. And this is my final message: together we must show leadership on global issues. Cooperation between the European Union and India will help shape a more balanced, resilient, and inclusive global order. Just two examples: I am proud of the commitments we are making for greater cooperation on clean energy, green transition, and climate resilience. And our collaboration through the Global Gateway and on the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor is decisive for global connectivity. By implementing the ambitious Joint Comprehensive Strategic Agenda towards 2030, we will align our priorities with concrete actions for the next five years: delivering real benefits to our citizens. Today, we have tangible progress and set an example of cooperative leadership on global issues. With: • our Free Trade Agreement; • our Security and Defence Partnership; and • our Joint Strategic Agenda for 2030. These outcomes are a crucial milestone on a longer path. We look forward to continuing the journey. Together, as always. Thank you very much. Press statement by President António Costa following the EU–India Summit, 27 January 2026. © European Union / Council of the EU. Reproduced with permission; original meaning preserved.

I. Introduction The European economy is in big trouble. Szu Ping Chan and Hans van Leeuwen, the economics editors of the Telegraph, a British daily newspaper, claim that the European Continent is stuck on a path of disastrous decline. [1] As Figure 1 shows, EU share of world GDP has continued to decline from 27% in 1990 to 17% in 2024.  Figure 1: EU share of World GDP (source: IMF) As a result, EU’s GDP in 2000 was six times larger than Chinese GDP, but EU’s GDP in 2025 is expected to reach the similar level of China’s GDP as Figure 2 shows. EU’s GDP in 2000 was $3 trillion smaller than US GDP, but EU’s GDP in 2025 is expected to be over $ 10 trillion smaller than US GDP.  Figure 2: EU, US, China, Japan GDP, 2000 & 2025 (source: Alcott Global) Moreover, the Ukraine war in 2022 brought more uncertainty to Europe by creating energy problems for the European economy. Europe’s reliance on external energy sources has been a long-standing issue. The energy crisis that began in 2021, fueled by the Ukraine war and climate change, has exposed how fragile the region’s energy infrastructure remains. Skyrocketing LNG prices, unreliable renewable energy production, and Russia’s strategic use of fossil fuels as leverage have left the European continent struggling with record-high energy costs. With this information in background, this paper explores why the European economy has under-performed and fallen behind. This paper first describes the current economic situation of Europe and explains why the European economy has failed. II. The Current Situation of European Economy Europe may be a great place to live with free health care, generous welfare, and great cities. However, when we compare the economy of three major economies, the US, Europe, and China, it is obvious that the European economy is in big trouble. Europe is being squeezed by the US and China. As Figure 3 shows, economic growth has been anemic across Europe. Germany has been its worst performer in recent years. The German economy is the same size today as it was in the fourth quarter of 2019. In other words, it has had five years of lost growth. But the rest of Europe has not fared much better. The French economy is only 4.1% larger than it was in the final quarter of 2019, while Italy’s economy is 5.6% bigger. (See Figure 3.) And while Spain’s GDP has increased by 6.6% since then, this has been helped greatly by an influx of immigration that meant that GDP per capita has increased by only 2.9% over the same period. By contrast, the US economy has grown by 11.4%.  Figure 3: Real GDP (Q4 2019 = 100) (Source: LSEG, Capital Economics) As Figure 4 shows, over the period 2020-2024, the EU’s total GDP growth was 12.2% compared to 23.4% for China, 15% for the US.  Figure 4: Growth, EU, US, China, and Japan, 2020-2024 As Figure 5 shows, the EU grew only 1.1% in 2024 compared to 2.8% for the US and 5.0% for China. Figure 5: GDP growth, EU, US, China, and Japan, 2024 Moreover, when we compare the economies of two Western rivals, the US and Europe, it is obvious that the EU has grown slower than the US, as Figure 6 shows.  Figure 6: US grow faster than EU countries, 2010-2024 (source: World Bank) As Figure 7 shows, Europe’s unemployment has been higher than the US.  Figure 7: EU unemployment is higher than US, 2000-2024 As Figure 8 shows, Europe’s LNG price has been higher than US price during the 2020-2024, and higher than Asian price immediately after Russia invaded Ukraine, thereby burdening the European economy.  Figure 8: LNG price, EU, US, Asia, January 2000-January 2024 Furthermore, when it comes to new engines of growth – big tech, AI, electric cars, Europe has slipped behind both the US and China. Europe is being squeezed by cheaper imports in China and better tech in America. III. Causes of the Failure of European Economy Why has the European economy failed? According to Neil Shearing, a chief economist of Capital Economics, Europe’s under-performance has been due in part to the effects of the energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as Figure 9 shows Europe’s skyrocketing gas prices. [2]  Figure 9: Natural gas prices, Europe, US, Japan, January 2021- end 2024 In addition, as Figure 10 shows, energy prices in the Euro area reached an all time high of 171.75 points in October of 2022 following the Ukraine war. It decreased to 145.49 points in November 2025, but it is still too high.  Figure 10: Energy price, Euro zone (source: Eurostat) As Table 1 shows, dependence on energy imports has shown divergent trends since 2000: The US has dramatically reduced its reliance on energy imports and become a net exporter, while the European Union has maintained a high level of energy dependence, and China’s dependence has generally increased along with its enormous economic growth. The US has undergone a remarkable transformation. Around 2005, US crude oil imports reached a peak at about 60% of their consumption. Thanks to the shale revolution and growing renewable energy use, US domestic production soared, and the US became a net energy exporter in 2019. By 2024, US energy imports made up only 17% of its energy demand. China’s rapid economic growth has driven a massive increase in energy demand. As a result, its dependence on energy imports has increased significantly since 2000. China is the world’s largest importer of crude oil. While China is also the leading investor in renewable energy, which meets a portion of its growing energy demand, the absolute need for fossil fuel imports to power its industrial sector remains high. In 2024, energy imports met around 25% of their total energy demand. Table 1: Dependence on Energy Imports, 2000–2025 As Figure 11 shows, the EU consistently shows high dependence on energy imports over the last three decades during the 1993-2024 period. The EU’s dependence on oil and gas imports have been much higher than the US and China. EU’s dependence on oil imports was over 90%, while EU’s gas import dependence reached over 90% in 2023 following the Ukraine war. While the EU has made progress in renewable energy, it remains heavily reliant on oil and gas imports, and has recently shifted its import sources from Russia to other partners such as the US and Norway. This high dependence on energy imports and energy crisis in Europe following the Ukraine war led to a deterioration in the region’s terms of trade that manifested itself in a large squeeze in real incomes and loss of competitiveness of energy-intensive industries, thereby lowering economic growth in Europe.  Figure 11: Dependence on energy imports, EU, US, and China, 1993-2024 In addition, European households have also become more reluctant to spend, thereby leading Europe to lower growth. The household saving rate in Europe is now three percentage points higher than it was before the Covid-19 pandemic in 2019, while the savings rate in the US is now lower than it was in 2019. (See Figure 12.) The tendency of Europeans to spend less leads to lower growth in Europe.  Figure 12: Euro-zone household savings rate (% of disposable income) However, the weakness of the European economy is fundamentally structural. There are several elements to this. The first key issue related to low growth in Europe is regulation in Europe that stifles competition and innovation. The EU has become increasingly protectionist, mainly through regulation. While convenient, this strategy proves counterproductive. It eliminates the incentives for creativity and efficiency. The Digital Services Act and increasingly narrow interpretations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) were intended to rein in US tech giants, but have instead held Europe back in these same sectors. The AI Act and supply chain laws are similarly damaging. It is perhaps no surprise that the major disruptive and innovative firms of the past two decades have come from the US and China rather than from the Euro-zone countries. Robot taxis are a good example. One in three taxi rides in California is already in a robot taxi. The growth has been exponential and they are set to overtake ordinary taxis. The market opportunity is huge; they will be cheaper than paying a driver. In Texas, Tesla charges just a dollar a mile. They are safer too – 90% fewer accidents. And that means cheaper car insurance. They will save income, decrease emissions and reduce the need to buy an expensive car. It’s not just America; 2,000 self-driving cars have already been transporting millions across the big cities in China. But, for Europeans, the idea of a self-driving car, is still the stuff of science fiction. Or more accurately, something blocked by the European love of regulation, risk-aversion, and a powerful car lobby still stuck in the combustion engine era. [3] Another example is the tech industry. Europe is hampered by fragmented and excessive regulation. A US start-up can launch a product under a single regulatory framework and immediately access a market of more than 330 million consumers. The EU has a population of about 450 million but remains divided among 27 national regulatory regimes. An IMF analysis shows that internal market barriers in the EU act like a tariff of around 44% for goods and 110% for services – far higher than the tariff levels that the US imposes on most imports. [4] True, Europe has some successes such as Revolut, Klarna and Spotify, but these are dwarfed by the US giants of Meta, Google, Microsoft and Apple. Today, approximately half of the world’s 50 largest technology firms are American, while only four are European companies. [5] Over the past five decades, 241 US firms have grown from start-ups into massive unicorn companies. The EU’s response has been to seek to regulate the murky world of big tech surveillance, but in a way, the sledgehammer of GDPR regulation has done more to increase costs for local European business and tech startups as Figure 13 shows. While California alone has produced a quarter of the world’s tech unicorns, Germany-a similarly sized economy-has produced just 2% of high-value start-ups. Without urgent reform, Europe risks being sidelined in the global technological race.  Figure 13: GDPR regulation and EU & US Venture capital There is an old saying: the US invents, China imitates, and Europe regulates. Harsh, but an element of truth. Though the big change is that China no longer imitates, but produces goods much cheaper than in Europe. But Europe is still stuck in a regulatory mind-set. The result is that productivity growth in Europe - which is the key determinant of economic growth over the long run - is substantially lower, averaging 0.3% a year over the past decade compared to 1.6% a year in the US. The second issue is Europe’s insufficient investment in new technologies (computers, artificial intelligence (AI), software, etc.) and the low level of spending on research and development (R&D). When we compare OECD countries, we see that these two components have a strong influence on productivity differences between countries. The econometric estimate leads to the following effects: a 1- point increase in the rate of investment in new technologies leads to a 0.8 point increase per year in productivity gains. In a similar way, a 1-point increase in GDP for research and development (R&D) expenditure leads to a 0.9 point increase per year in productivity gains. [6] The fear is that Europe will be drawn into a vicious circle By 2022, investment in new technologies represented 5% of GDP in the US and 2.8% of GDP in the Euro zone. The EU’s efforts in advanced technologies, such as AI and cloud computing, far from match those of the US. The main instrument available to the EU, the European Innovation Council, had a budget of 256 million euros in 2024, while the US allocated more than 6 billion dollars for this purpose. The situation is repeated when looking at venture capital investment. In 2023, they invested about $8 billion in venture capital in AI in the EU, compared to $68 billion in the US and $15 billion in China. The few companies that create generative AI models in Europe, such as Aleph Alpha and Mistral, need large investments to avoid losing the race to US firms. However, European markets do not meet this need, pushing European firms to look outside for funding. [7] As a result, for example, the EU has been losing the open model contest as Figure 14 shows.  Figure 14: Cumulative downloads, 2023-25 (source: ATOM project, Hugging Face) Moreover, the EU falls behind the US and China in terms of R&D spending. R&D spending in 2022 amounted to 3.5% of GDP in the US and 2.3% of GDP in the Euro zone. What’s more, from 2007 on, as Figure 15 shows, R&D spending in the US and China increased significantly compared to that of the Euro zone. The lag in technological investment and R&D explains a large part of Europe’s lag behind the US in terms of labor productivity and GDP. [8]  Figure 15: Gross domestic spending on R&D, 2007-2023 The third issue related to lower growth in Europe is the size of welfare states in Europe. The size of welfare states differs markedly across OECD countries. European countries have the largest welfare states in the OECD and among the highest in the World. As Figure 16 shows, European welfare states are significantly larger than in the US, with EU countries allocating approximately 27% of GDP to social benefits in 2024, compared to roughly 19.8% in the US. Some European countries like Austria, Finland, and France spend over 30% of GDP on social benefits in 2024. While the US spends 7% of GDP on public provision of pensions, it is 16% in Italy and it is 13% in France.  Figure 16: Public social spending as a % of GDP in 2024, EU countries & US Big welfare states have a complex, debated impact on economic growth, with evidence showing they can both impede growth through higher taxes and reduced work incentives, or foster it by boosting education, stability, and innovation. However, there has recently been a groundswell of opinion among economists that the scale of the welfare state is one of the elements responsible for slower economic growth and that a retrenchment in the welfare state is necessary if growth will be revived in Europe. The welfare state is indicted with the charge of becoming a barrier to economic growth in Europe through higher taxes and reduced work incentives. As Figure 17 shows, the tax burden is higher in the EU than in the US for most taxpayers. The overall tax-to-GDP ratio for the EU averages approximately 44%. By contrast, the US ranks as one of the lowest among developed countries, with a tax-to-GDP ratio 35% in 2022 approximately 9% lower than the EU average.  Figure 17: Tax burden, EU and US, 2022 (source: OECD Government at a glance, 2023) Figure 18 shows the total tax wedge for average single workers in each member country of EU. Belgium, Germany, Austria, and France confiscate more than half of their workers’ pre-tax compensation. Compared to the EU member countries, workers in the US face the lowest average tax wedge. This distorts work incentives for Europeans and renders everyone in Europe poorer. [9] High taxes and less work incentives make EU citizens spend less than US citizens, thereby lowering economic growth in Europe as Figure 19 shows.  Figure 18: EU workers pay more taxes than US workers, 2022 (source: OECD Government at a glance, 2023)  Figure 19: Americans spend 70% more on EU citizens (Average individual consumption per capita, 2020; United States indexed to 100). (source: National Accounts of OECD countries) In fact, Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson (1998) showed empirically that as the size of general government spending has almost doubled on average in OECD countries from 1960 to 1996, their real GDP growth rates have dropped by almost two thirds on average (see Figure 20). According to them, the worst economic performers were some Southern European countries that increased the size of the government the most.  Figure 20: Big government spending reduces growth. At the height of the Euro-zone crisis in 2012, German Chancellor Angela Merkel tried to make the case that Europe’s welfare states were too large, as Europe accounted for 7% of the global population, for a quarter of global GDP and for 50% of global social spending. The situation has not improved since then. On September 9, 2024, Draghi presented his report “The Future of European Competitiveness,” a 400-page document, to deal with Europe’s sluggish economy, but he kept untouched Europe’s over-sized welfare state, while he strongly called for reforms and investments to reinforce productivity growth. [10] The fourth issue is the Euro. The Euro has been a mixed blessing for Europe. It lowers transaction costs but highlights an unbalanced EU economy. Germany runs a large current account surplus, fringe economies like Portugal and Greece running deficits. But there is no scope for Germany to appreciate, weaker countries to devalue. One size fits all. But, this can have disastrous effects. The Euro Debt Crisis of 2012, led to high bond yields and a response of austerity, which contributed to weak growth in the last decade. Mario Draghi’s intervention reduced bond yields, but the European Central Bank has been criticized for a deflationary bias, and it has certainly struggled since the Covid-19 era, with growth in Europe much less. IV. Conclusion This paper showed that the European economy is in big trouble with lower growth. This paper explained that Europe’s economic under-performance & sluggish economy can be attributed to energy crisis and high saving, as well as over-regulation, large size of welfare state & high taxation, and lack of innovation & low investment in new technology and R&D. Referencias [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/12/14/rising-fear–europe-really-is-doomed-and -taking-britain-down/ [2] https://www.capitaleconomics.com/blog/its-not-just-france-europe–faces-ongoing-decline- without-fundamental-reform-its-core [3] https://www.capitaleconomics.com/blog/its-not-just-france-europe–faces-ongoing-decline- without-fundamental-reform-its-core [4] https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/europe-most-serious-problem-not-immigra tion-but-technological-backwardness-by-nouriel-roubini-2025-12 [5] https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/europe-most-serious-problem-not-immigra tion-but-technological-backwardness-by-nouriel-roubini-2025-12 [6] https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/economy/economy-why-europe-is-falllling-behind-the-usa/ [7] https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/economy/economy-why-europe-is-fall ing-behind-the-usa/ [8] https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/economy/economy-why-europe-is-fall ing-behind-the-usa/ [9] https://mises.org/mises-wire/europes-economy-slows-its-welfare-state-grows [10] https://www.csis.org/analysis/draghi-report-strategy-reform-european-economic-model

Will sanctions create a more inward-looking generation, or will VPNs and parallel imports keep Russia’s youth plugged into global culture anyway? 2010s in Russia – The “Peak of Freedom” After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia underwent severe economic, political, and cultural changes. Previously blocked by the iron curtain, Russians suddenly found themselves exposed to Western influence. In the early 2000s’, Russia was culturally and economically thriving. Nowadays, it is hard to imagine controversial artists such as drag artists, t.A.T.u. and others performing on the national stage, when back then all of this was broadcast across the country. For citizens of border cities such as Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad, this was a period of frequent travelling abroad. Trips to neighboring countries to buy products or visit relatives have become part of normal life. Russia seemed more democratic, integrated, and culturally alive. The 2010s’ marked the beginning of sanctions. Yet for most Russians, daily life hardly changed. Even after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, people continued to travel, buy “sanctioned” goods, and enjoy global events. Russia even hosted the FIFA World Cup in 2018, which was a moment of international recognition that contrasted with the West’s growing political distance. Сергей Ильницкий / EPA This changed drastically in 2022, when Moscow launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This time, the sanctions were sweeping and deeply felt in everyday life. Major international companies announced their departure from the Russian market. According to Russian claims, U.S. companies lost more than $300 billion as a result, while the Financial Times reported that European firms lost over $100 billion in just 18 months. It has now been more than three years since major international brands officially “left” Russia. McDonald’s, Adidas, Zara, IKEA, and many others appeared to vanish from Russian market. On paper, they exited what many call a rogue state. In reality, most of them never truly left. Adaptation Under Sanctions By early 2023, Russia’s consumer market was full of “new-old” brands. While some companies left outright, the majority transferred stocks to local managers, often at discounts of up to 70%. As a result, there was a strange marketplace with familiar stores but unfamiliar names. At the same time, Ukrainian observers note a different reality. Forbes reported that many foreign revenue leaders in Russia, including Philip Morris, Pepsi, Mars, Nestlé, Leroy Merlin, and Raiffeisen Bank never left Russia at all. According to B4Ukraine, these companies together paid over $41.6 billion in taxes, equivalent to roughly one-third of Russia’s annual military budget. Back in 2023 Philip Morris International confirmed that it would “rather keep” its Russian holdings than sell them at a discount to local investors. For example, L’Occitane simply transliterated its name into Cyrillic, while Spanish corporation Inditex sold its stocks to Daher, and brands like ZARA, Pull&Bear, Bershka were replaced by alternative brands like Maag, Ecru, Dub. Thus, authentic ZARA’s clothing still can be easily found on internet marketplaces, such as Lamoda. Food and beverage: Starbucks transformed into Stars Coffee, McDonald’s into Vkusno i Tochka. Coca-Cola was sold to a Russian businessman and rebranded as Dobryi Cola. Yet, many shops still sell original Coca-Cola imported from neighboring countries such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, or Poland. Finnish company Fazer Group sold Khlebniy Dom (major bread and pastry company) to “Kolomenskyi” holding, keeping the same legal structure, representatives, and recipes. Consumer goods and toys: Lego returned as Mir Kubikov (“Cubic World”), offering identical products under a new name. German holding Henkel became Lab Industries, selling the same products under Cyrillic labels. Earlier this year Daher Group claimed that Adidas would reopen stores by November 2025, though details remain unclear. Nike, meanwhile, continues to operate in Russia under the abbreviation NSP — Nike Sport Point. For Russian youth, these “copycat” and alternative have a mixed reaction. On social media platforms like Telegram, Instagram and TikTok memes mocking the awkward logos and uninspired renamings were circulating. Young consumers still crave original products, especially iPhones, brand clothes and cosmetics, which are often purchased through parallel imports, friends, albeit at inflated prices. Polls confirm such trend. According to the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (RPORC), 94% of Russians believe that Western brands will eventually return, and 68% think it is only a matter of time. About 60% of the population continues to buy sanctioned goods; for 28%, it has become a habit. Two-thirds of respondents say they would prefer national brands only if the price were equal. This dual reality for young Russians means living in a consumer world that is both familiar and fractured. Economic Challenges Despite adaptation, Russia’s economic outlook remains mixed. Polling by RPORC suggests that while many Russians believe the economy is worsening, a growing number also describe it as “stabilizing.” As RPORC explained: “Businesses and people were able to adapt to new conditions. Not everyone succeeded, but economic catastrophe did not happen.” © Тимур Ханов/ПГ The Levada Center found similar resilience. Half of respondents said their lives had not changed in recent years, or that they had even found new opportunities. One in five, however, admitted to abandoning their old lifestyle or struggling to adapt. Two-thirds reported feeling confident about the future, most of them relying on wages and pensions, with fewer depending on savings or secondary income. Economic indicators, however, tell a more fragile story. The Consumer Sentiment Index fell to 110 points in August 2025, down from 117 in June. Assessments of current living conditions dropped sharply, while expectations for the future also declined. Businesses face ongoing challenges. According to the Bank of Russia’s September monitoring, companies reported weaker demand, especially in manufacturing, alongside persistent cost pressures from labor shortages and rising expenses. Inflation has moderated to 8.2% year-on-year, but expectations of higher prices remain. In response, the central bank cautiously lowered its interest rate from 18% to 17%. While this move was intended to encourage funding and investment, it came with warnings. High rates had already limited capital investment and strained both households and firms. For younger Russians, this translates into expensive loans, delayed purchases of homes or cars, and fewer stable jobs. Small firms are especially vulnerable, and larger companies hesitate to commit to long-term investment in Russia. The October 24 monetary policy meeting is expected to clarify whether further rate cuts will follow, but for now, the message remains one of “cautious easing amid a fragile economy.” For Russian youth entering the workforce, the environment is uncertain. Jobs in international firms are disappearing, wages struggle to keep pace with inflation, and credit is harder to access. Their career paths are increasingly shaped by state-owned companies or sanctioned industries rather than by global opportunities. Government Restrictions Sanctions are only half the story. Alongside them, the Russian government has tightened internal restrictions, from healthcare to social media, touching nearly every aspect of citizens’ lives. On September 1, 2025, a wave of new restrictions and laws came into force. In healthcare, paramedics and obstetric nurses were legally authorized to provide emergency care in the absence of doctors, while health and dietary supplements (“БАДы”) became subject to stricter regulation. Additionally, a new federal list of Strategically Significant Medicinal Products was introduced to encourage full domestic production of essential drugs. This move aims to reduce Russia’s dependence on imported medicine and support local firms. Beyond healthcare, other laws targeted digital life and education. Advertising VPNs was banned, along with advertising in prohibited apps. While internet users faced growing difficulties with messaging platforms, the government launched a new app called Max, a Russian equivalent of China’s WeChat, while simultaneously restricting access to competitors such as Telegram, WhatsApp, and Viber. Although text communication remains possible, audio and video calls are increasingly blocked. According to the Levada Center, 71% of Russians recently reported problems accessing the internet on mobile phones, and 63% experienced issues with messaging apps. Public opinion is split: 49% support Roskomnadzor’s decision to block voice calls on WhatsApp and Telegram, while 41% oppose it. Support varies by age and education level: younger people and the highly educated are far more likely to oppose restrictions, disapprove of Putin’s presidency, and favor a ceasefire in Ukraine. Education has also come under tighter state control. New quotas for universities, stricter graduation requirements, and the exit from the Bologna education system are expected to make it harder to pursue higher education abroad. For Russian youth, this means growing up in a system where schools and universities serve not only as centers of learning but also as instruments of political loyalty. Closing Reflection Older generations of Russians remember both the Iron Curtain and the sudden openness of the 2000s. Today’s youth, Gen Z and Gen Alpha, are growing up in a very different environment. Born into a Russia that once promised travel, global brands, and open media, they now face a country of copycat stores, patriotic lessons, and state-controlled apps. Their world is paradoxical: connected through VPNs, Telegram, and imported iPhones, yet isolated by censorship, propaganda, and restricted travel. They can mock “Vkusno i Tochka” on Telegram but cannot easily study abroad or see global TikTok trends without additional tools. This contradiction defines Russian youth today. They adapt quickly to new changes and even mock fake brands, find ways around bans, and stay tuned to global culture. But they are also growing up in a system that narrows horizons, imposes loyalty, and tries to shape them into a generation of compliance. Thus, the question remains. Will sanctions and state policies succeed in creating a more conservative, obedient generation? Or will Russian youth continue to find creative ways to remain connected to the wider world? Their choices will shape not only the future of Russian consumer culture, but the political and cultural direction of the country itself. References https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/articles/2025/02/18/1092830-amerikanskii-biznes-poteryal https://b4ukraine.org/what-we-do/corporate-enablers-of-russias-war-report https://www.ft.com/content/656714b0-2e93-467b-92d6-a2d834bc0e2b

I. Introduction Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. As the Russian invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth year, its most immediate and visible consequences have been loss of life and large numbers of refugees from Ukraine. However, given the interconnected structure of the international political, economic, and policy systems, the ramifications of the Ukraine conflict can be felt well beyond Ukraine and Russia. Much of the recent literature and commentaries have focused on the military and strategic lessons learned from the on-going Ukraine conflict (Biddle 2022; 2023; Dijkstra et al. 2023). However, there are not many quality analyses of economic effects of the Ukraine war on Eastern European countries, including Russia and Ukraine. This paper focuses on the economic effects of the Ukraine war on nine Eastern European countries, including Russia and Ukraine. This is because although Eastern European countries are neighbors of Russia and Ukraine and have had significant negative economic outcomes from the Ukraine war, these countries were mainly ignored by researchers. II. The Economic Effects of the Ukraine war The impacts of war are far-reaching and devastating. War causes immense destruction of property and loss of life. It also creates psychological trauma for those who have experienced it firsthand. War can also have long-term economic impacts, such as higher unemployment and increased poverty. War can also lead to the displacement of people, as we have seen the millions of refugees who had been forced to flee their homes due to conflicts. War can also have political effects, such as creating new states or weakening existing nations. It can also lead to the rise of authoritarian regimes in many post-war nations. War can also lead to increased militarization as nations seek to protect themselves from future conflicts. The Ukraine war might have broader economic consequences. The supply chains may be affected because of the destruction of infrastructures and resources. War mobilization may affect the workforce and economic production. Actors in the economy may also act strategically to deploy resources elsewhere or to support the war effort because the war has affected incentive structures of workers and business. These effects can be local to geographical areas engulfed in conflict but also cause ripple effects to a wider regional area and to the global economy. Trade, production, consumption, inflation, growth and employment patterns may all be influenced. Peterson .K. Ozili.(2022) claimed that the scale of the Ukraine war had its negative impact on the economies of almost all countries around the world. According to Ozili, the main effects of the Ukraine war on the global economy are several, but this paper focuses on two below: Rising Oil Gas Prices  and inflation – European countries import a quarter of their oil and 40% of their natural gas from the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation is the second largest oil producer in the world and the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe, and after the invasion, European oil companies will have problems getting these resources from the Russian Federation. Even before the Russian invasion, oil prices were rising because of growing tensions between countries, the COVID-19 pandemic, and other factors, but remained in the $80–95 per barrel range. After the invasion, this price reached the value of $100. Natural gas prices rose 20% since the war began. Rising gas & oil prices can drive high inflation and increase public utility bills. Decline in production and economic growth. Rising oil and gas prices lead to high inflation and, therefore, a decline in consumption, supply and demand, thereby causing decline in growth and production. This paper focuses on inflation and GDP growth of nine Eastern European countries regarding the economic effects of the Ukraine war. Ozili (2022) claimed that very high inflation was a perceived negative consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As Figure 1 shows, inflation in the EU jumped in the first month of the invasion, and the increasing trend continues. EU inflation in 2022 peaked in October and amounted to 11.5% that was a historical record. However, inflation has slowly declined as energy prices have gone down. This higher inflation in Europe basically resulted from energy price increase. As Figures 2, 3, and 4 show, energy prices in Europe skyrocketed in 2022. As Figure 2 shows, energy prices have been the most important component of high inflation in the EU.  Figure 1: Average inflation rate in the EU (%). Source: EurostatCreated with Datawrapper     Figure 2: Main components of inflation rate in the Euro areas.  Figure 3: Natural gas prices in Europe, January 2021- end 2024  Figure 4: Crude oil price, January 2020-January 2025 Source: Eurostat Created with Datawrapper Inflation skyrocketed not only in the EU member countries, including Eastern European countries, but also in Russia and Ukraine.  Figure 5: Inflation rate in Russia, 2021-2025 As Figure 5 shows, inflation rate in Russia averaged 8.16 % from 2003 until 2025, but it reached an all time high of 20.37 % in April of 2022 just after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In 2022, Russia experienced high inflation, with the average annual rate reaching approximately 13.75%. This surge in inflation was largely attributed to the economic impact of Western sanctions and increased government spending related to the war in Ukraine. From end of 2022 and throughout 2023, however, inflation was brought under control, but in 2024 inflation started to climb again. The inflation rate in Russia has been moderately high in 2024 and 2025, reaching to 9.5% in 2024 and 9.9% in May 2025 and 9.4% in June 2025.   Figure 6: Inflation rate in Ukraine, 2021-2025 The Ukrainian economy has undergone harsh conditions with the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Following the start of the invasion, inflation skyrocketed to 26.6% in October 2022 from 10.0% in 2021. Inflation in Ukraine started to slow down from the end of 2022 throughout 2023, reaching 5.1% in November 2023. However, inflation began to rise from early 2024 and then grew to 12% in December 2024. As Figure 5 & 6 shows, inflation rates in Russia and Ukraine do not follow the pattern of EU countries in which inflation skyrocketed in 2022 and then has slowly declined over time. Rather inflation in Russia and Ukraine skyrocketed in 2022 and then slowed down in 2023 and started to climb again in 2024 and 2025. As Figure 7 shows, inflation in Eastern European countries has been also very high just after Russia invaded Ukraine. Hungary’s annual inflation rate surged in 2022, reaching a peak of 26.2 % in January 2023. By mid-2023, it began to decline, and by 2024, it showed a gradual decline trend, reaching 3.7 % in 2024. And inflation in Hungary slightly increased in 2025, reaching 4.6% in June 2025 and 4.4% in May 2025.  The Czech Republic(Czechia) experienced a significant surge in inflation in 2022, with the average inflation rate reaching 15.1%. This marked the second-highest inflation rate since the Czech Republic’s independence in 1993.  Two factors mainly contributed to this surge: High energy prices:The global energy crisis, exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, significantly impacted energy prices in the Czech Republic.  Increased food prices: The rising energy costs also led to higher food prices, with some sectors experiencing inflation rates as high as 26%.  The inflation rate in the Czech Republic in 2023 was relatively high, reaching 10.7%. However, inflation significantly declined in 2024 and 2025. The average annual inflation rate in the Czech Republic for 2024 was 2.4%. The inflation rate in 2025 was also low, recording 2.7% in July 2025. Poland also experienced a significant increase in inflation in 2022, with the average inflation rate reaching 14.2%. The inflation was down to 11.47% in 2023, but it was still high. The rate continued to fall, reaching 3.72% in 2024. In July 2025, inflation dropped to 3.1%. Similarly, Bulgaria experienced a significant surge in inflation in 2022, reaching a peak of 18.7 % in September 2022. However, Bulgaria’s annual inflation rate continued to decline from 13.02% in 2022 to 8.6% in 2023 and 2.6% in 2024. The inflation in June 2025 was 3.1%.  Romania experienced a significant surge in inflation in 2022, reaching a peak of 14.6 in November 2022. However, the annual inflation rate in Romania declined from 13.8% in 2022, recording 10.4% in 2023 and 5.58% in 2024. The inflation rate reached a more moderate rate of 5.8% in June 2025.  Slovakia experienced a significant surge in inflation in 2022, reaching a peak of 15.4 % in November 2022. However, the annual inflation rate in Slovakia declined to 10.96% in 2023, and 3.15% in 2024. The inflation rate in Slovakia reached a more moderate rate of 4.3% in June 2025.  Slovenia had much lower inflation rate than other Eastern European countries. The annual inflation rate in Slovenia was 8.83% in 2022, 7.45% in 2023, and 1.97% in 2024. The inflation rate in Slovenia reached a relatively low rate of 2.2% in June 2025.  Unlike Russia and Ukraine, these Eastern European countries followed the pattern of EU countries in which inflation skyrocketed in 2022 and then has slowly declined over time.   Figure 7: Inflation rate in Eastern Europe during the Ukraine war Very high inflation in Europe during the early stage of Ukraine war basically resulted from energy price increase as Figures 2, 3, and 4 show. It is because European countries were heavily dependent on Russian energy. Figure 8 shows that a number of Eastern European countries were significantly dependent on Russian energy in 2020 before the Ukraine war. For example, Slovakia and Hungary depended on Russia for more than 50 % of their energy use. Moreover, Europe was the largest importer of natural gas in the world. Russia provided roughly 40% and 25% of EU’s imported gas and oil before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As Figure 9 shows, major gas importers from Russia in 2021 were European countries.  Figure 8: EU member country’s dependence on Russia energy  Figure 9: Major EU importers from Russian Gas in 2021. However, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, more than 9,119 new economic sanctions have been imposed on Russia, making it the most sanctioned country in the world. At least 46 countries or territories, including all 27 EU nations, have imposed sanctions on Russia. EU trade with Russia has been strongly affected by the sanctions, resulting in a 58% decline in exports to Russia and an 86% drop in imports from Russia between the first quarter of 2022 and the third quarter of 2024. In the response, as Figure 10 shows, Russia cut its gas exports to the EU by around 80% since the Russian invasion, resulting in higher gas price in Europe.  Figure 10: Monthly Russia-EU pipeline gas flows, 2022-2025 Nonetheless, Figure 11 show that Hungary, Slovakia, and Czech Republic have been major  importers of Russian gas and oil after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while Figure 12 shows that Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Czech Republic have been major importers and consumers of Russian gas after the Ukraine war. Figure 11: Largest importers of Russian fossil fuels (January 1, 2023 to February 16, 2025)  Figure 12: Selected European countries’ imports of Russian natural gas as shares of total consumption. As energy prices in Europe skyrocketed, inflation, including food price also skyrocketed in Europe. As a result, consumption in Europe was down and GDP growth declined in Europe after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As Ozili claimed, lower growth rate was also a perceived negative consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As Figure 13 shows, GDP in EU was down to 3.5 % in 2022 compared to 6.3% in 2021, and it was further down to 0.8 % in 2023 because of economic stagnation and high inflation caused by the Ukraine war.  Figure 13: Average annual GDP growth rate in EU, 1996-2025. Like EU countries, Russia, Ukraine and some Eastern European countries experienced negative growth rates in 2022 & 2023 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Russia’s economy has undergone significant transformation since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. As Figure 14 shows, Russia GDP growth rate for 2022 was -2.07%, a 7.68% decline from 2021. This decline in GDP was due to international sanctions, the withdrawal of foreign companies and overall economic uncertainty. However, the impact was largely offset by a favourable terms-of-trade from higher commodity prices and support from third countries – especially China, Turkey, the UAE and countries bordering Russia – which have served as conduits for sanctions evasion.  Figure 14: Russia GDP Growth Rate By 2023, the Russian economy had increasingly shifted to a war footing. As Figure 15 shows, military spending significantly increased after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Surge in government spending such as military spending, counter-sanctions measures and credit growth boosted investment, construction and overall economic activity in Russia. The military-industrial sector benefitted the most, as did private consumption driven by war-related payments and high real wage growth resulting from the tight labor market. Meanwhile, sectors reliant on Western markets or foreign companies continued to struggle. As a result, Russia’s GDP grew by 3.6 percent in 2023 and 4.3 percent in 2024. Economic expansion resulted from rising government expenditure and investment in its military as it continues its war against Ukraine.  Figure 15: Russia military spending By the end of 2024 and in early 2025, however, signs of economic stagnation had become evident. Even the military-industrial sector began to stagnate. The economy had butted up against its supply-side constraints. In the first quarter of 2025, annual growth slowed to an estimated 1.4 % (from 4.5 % in the last quarter of 2024. Economic contraction was driven by falling activity in trade, mining, real estate and leisure, which growth in agriculture, manufacturing and public administration were not able to offset.  Figure 16: Ukraine GDP growth rate Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 significantly affected Ukraine economy. As Figure 16 shows, Ukraine’s GDP growth rate for 2022 was -28.76%, a 32.08% decline from 2021. GDP growth rate in Ukraine averaged 1.33% from 2000 until 2025, reaching a record low of -36.60 % in the second quarter of 2022. Ukraine’s economy started to bounce back in 2023 and the GDP growth rate in Ukraine for 2023 was 5.32 %, a 34.08 increase in 2022. GDP growth rate reached an all time high of 19.30% in the second quarter of 2023. The GDP growth for 2024 was down to 2.9%. In the first quarter of 2025, Ukraine’s GDP grew 0.9%. However, the Ukrainian economy has been propped up by financial support from Western countries, including military and humanitarian aid, as well as loans from frozen Russian assets. Financing from abroad has been essential in sustaining Ukraine’s ability to survive. Ukraine’s 2024 public sector deficit rose to a record 1.832 trillion hryvnia, or almost 24 % of GDP. Over 60 % of spending went to defense and domestic security. Ukraine’s foreign partner countries provided approximately $42 billion in direct budget support in 2024, of which a large chunk ($17.5 billion) was provided via the EU’s Ukraine Facility. In 2025, Ukraine’s financing situation looks brighter compared to the beginning of 2024, when the EU’s 50-billion-euro Ukraine Facility and America’s over-60-million-dollar Ukraine aid package were blocked due to legislative intransigence. The structure of 2025 deficit financing in Ukraine represents a big change from 2024 as a substantial part of the deficit will be covered out of the yield on Russia’s frozen assets. Last summer, G-7 leaders agreed on an Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration (ERA) arrangement allowing for the use of 183 billion Euro of frozen Russian assets (end-2024) in the EU area to help Ukraine. The ERA program does not draw on the Russian assets directly but uses its proceeds to finance payments and costs of a $50 billion loan. As Figure 17 shows, ERA disbursements allocated to Ukraine will come to nearly $22 billion in 2025 and $11 billion in 2026. The new Trump administration has yet to withdraw from the ERA program, even if substantial cuts have already been made in e.g. USAID financing to Ukraine. The US remains the ERA program’s largest supporter, accounting for a total disbursement commitment of $20 billion. Figure 17: ERA program for Ukraine from Western countries, 2023-2026 Moreover, according to the Ukraine Support Tracker from Kiel University, Ukraine has received 267 billion euros in aid over the past three years. Half of this has been in weapons and military assistance, with 118 billion euros in financial support and 19 billion euros for humanitarian aid. European countries contributed more than the US: 62 billion euros in arms and 70 billion euros in other aid from Europe, compared with 64 billion euros in arms and 50 billion euros in other aid from the US. On the other hand, the Ukraine war caused a massive refugee crisis to Eastern European countries. The Ukraine war made millions of Ukraine people cross the border into neighboring countries in Eastern countries, affecting the economy of each nation. Table 1 shows the number of Ukraine refugees settled in Europe. Most of the Ukraine refugees settled in Poland and the Czech Republic, followed by Romania, Slovakia, and Moldova. These Ukraine refugees had significant impacts on Eastern European economy, in particular on Poland and Czech Republic. Table 1: Number of refugees from Ukraine settled in EuropeSource: UNHCR Operational Data The Ukraine war affected Poland’s economy in several ways, creating both difficulties and opportunities. First, there were problems with energy supplies that could threaten Poland’s access to power. The conflict in Ukraine has shaken up Poland’s energy market quite a bit, affecting its gas and oil supplies and leading to a spike in prices. Right after the conflict began, gasoline prices in Poland jumped by more than 40% as Figure 18 shows. This is mainly because Poland used to get a lot of its energy from Russia, and now, because of the Ukraine war and the sanctions that followed, there’s been a big disruption. As Figure 19 shows, food prices also skyrocketed just after the Ukraine war.  Figure 18: Gasoline price in Poland Figure 19: Food inflation in Poland Food inflation in Poland averaged 4.11 % from 1999 until 2025, reaching an all time high of 24.00 % in February of 2023. Moreover, there has been the arrival of more than 1 million Ukraine refugees, which put pressure on jobs and public services in Poland. The Polish government has had to increase its public spending significantly to provide housing, healthcare, and social services for the newcomers. This sudden increase in spending seemed overwhelming at first, but it also brought potential economic benefits in the long run. For example, the influx of Ukraine refugees boosted demand for local goods and services, which in turn stimulated the Polish economy. Despite both difficulties and opportunities that the Ukraine war brought to Poland, Poland’s GDP growth rate in 2022 was 5.3%. This indicates a strong economic performance, although it was slightly lower than the 6.9% growth rate in 2021. However, Poland's GDP growth rate in 2023 was down to 0.2%. This signifies a significant slowdown compared to the 5.3% growth in 2022. The slowdown was attributed to factors like energy inflation-induced decline in household spending and stagnant consumption. Poland’s real GDP grew by 2.9% in 2024, exceeding initial expectations, which were set at 2.8%. As inflation was down, it allowed for consumer spending and contributed to economic expansion. The Polish economy continues to grow by 3.2% in the first quarter of 2025. Figure 20: annual GDP growth rate in Poland, 2016-2024 The Czech economy has experienced significant impacts from the Ukraine war due to supply chain disruptions and rising energy & food prices. As Figure 21 and 22 show, gasoline and food prices in Czech Republic skyrocketed just after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gasoline prices in Czech Republic skyrocketed in June 2022 at 2.05 USD/Liter from 1.12 USD/Liter in May2020. Gasoline prices in Czech Republic averaged 1.48 USD/Liter from 1995 until 2025, reaching a high of 2.05 USD/Liter in June of 2022 and a record low of 0.72 USD/Liter in December of 1998. Figure 21: Gasoline price in the Czech Republic  Figure 22: Food inflation in the Czech Republic As a result, after a solid recovery from Covid-19 pandemic in 2021 with 4.0% growth rate, economic activity slowed down in 2022-2023 as a result of the consequences of the war in Ukraine, including EU sanctions on Russia and rising energy & food prices. Nonetheless, the Czech achieved a moderate growth in 2022 with a growth rate of 2.8% but the Czech economy contracted by -0.1% in 2023 and has been weak with a growth rate of 1.1% in 2024 and 0.7 % in the first quarter of 2025. Figure 23: annual GDP growth rate in Czech Republic, 2016-2024 Hungary’s economy has faced significant challenges due to the war in Ukraine, including increased energy costs, inflation, and disruptions to trade and supply chains. Hungary economy grew by 4.6 % in 2022, but declined to -0.91% in 2023 due to the extremely high inflation and weak consumptions. The consumer price in Hungary rose to a peak of 25.7% in January 2023, the highest rate in the EU. High inflation was driven by surging energy and food prices as Figures 24 and 25 show. The Hungary economy has been weak with the growth rate of 0.5 % in 2024. The GDP expanded by 0.1% in the second quarter of 2025. Figure 24: Gasoline price in Hungary Figure 25: Food inflation in Hungary  Figure 26: annual GDP growth rate in Hungary, 2016-2024 Bulgaria’s economy has faced challenges from the Ukraine ware, due to increased energy prices and disruptions in trade. As Figure 27 shows, the initial economic recovery was stronger than anticipated, with a 4.0% GDP growth in 2022, but the Ukraine war’s impact, coupled with inflation and global economic headwinds, led to a slowdown. Bulgaria’s economy expanded by 1.89 % in 2023. Then Bulgaria GDP bounced back to 2.8 % in 2024 and by 3.1% in the first quarter of 2025. Figure 27: annual GDP growth rate in Bulgaria, 2016-2024 Romania’s economy has experienced both positive and negative impacts from the Ukraine war. As Figure 28 shows, the Romanian economy displayed unexpected strength in 2022, with a 4.8% growth rate thanks to strong private consumption and investment. However, the Ukraine war’s effects, particularly on energy prices and supply chains, dampened Romanian growth. Romanian growth rate for 2023 was 2.2%, but it moderately rebound in 2024 with a 2.8% growth rate. The Romanian GDP increased by 0.3% in the first quarter of 2025. Romania faced challenges related to fiscal deficits, public debt, and inflation. Romania’s ability to navigate these challenges and capitalize on opportunities, such as EU support and its strategic geographic location, will be crucial for its long-term economic prosperity.  Figure 28: annual GDP growth rate in Romania, 2016-2024 Slovakia’s economy has faced significant challenges due to the war in Ukraine, mainly through energy & food price shocks and disruptions to trade and supply chains. As Figure 29 and 30 show, gasoline and food price in Slovakia significantly increased. Slovakia’s economy grew by 0.45% in 2022, a 5.28% decline from 2021. GDP growth rate for 2023 was 1.38 %. GDP growth in Slovakia moderately bounced back in 2024 with a growth rate of 2.0. In the first quarter of 2025, Slovakia economy grew by 0.2 %.  Figure 29: Gasoline price in Slovakia Figure 30: food inflation in Slovakia Figure 31: annual GDP growth rate in Slovakia, 2016-2024 In 2022, Slovenia experienced a slow economic growth with 2.7%, a 5.69% decline from 2021. due to the Ukraine war and subsequent energy price hikes and supply chain disruptions. Slovenia’s economy has been hurt by the Ukraine war and subsequent flooding in 2023 and 2024 with a 2.1 % and 1.5 % growth rate, respectively. Slovenia’s GDP growth was down to -0.7 % in the first quarter of 2025.   Figure 32: annual GDP growth rate in Slovenia, 2016-2024 III. Conclusion  This paper analyzed the economic effects of the Ukraine war on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern European countries with a focus on inflation and GDP growth. The paper showed that after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, inflation skyrocketed not only in the EU member countries, including Eastern European countries, but also in Russia and Ukraine. However, the pattern of inflation was different. Inflation in Russia and Ukraine did not follow the inflation pattern of EU member countries in which inflation skyrocketed in 2022 and then has slowly declined over time. Rather inflation in Russia and Ukraine skyrocketed in 2022 and then slowed down in 2023 and started to climb again in 2024 and 2025. Inflation in Eastern European countries followed the pattern of EU member countries in which inflation skyrocketed in 2022 and has then slowly declined over time. On the other hand, the pattern of GDP growth was different, depending on the individual conditions of each nation, although most countries experienced economic decline in 2022 relative to 2021. Some countries such as Ukraine and Russia experienced negative growth in 2022 and then recovered from 2023. Other countries such as Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Czech Republic experienced moderate growth in 2022 and then slowed down over time. Still other countries like Slovakia and Slovenia experienced very low GDP growth over the period of 2022-2025.  References Biddle, Stephen D. 2022. “Ukraine and the Future of Offensive Maneuver.” War on the Rocks. November 22. https://warontherocks.com/2022/11/ukraine-and-the-future-of-offensive-maneuver/.Biddle, Stephen D. 2023. “Back in the Trenches: Why New Technology Hasn’t Revolutionized Warfare in Ukraine.” Foreign Affairs 102 (5): 153–164.Dijkstra, Hyllke, Myriam Dunn Cavelty, Nicole Jenne, and Yf Reykers. 2023. “What We GotWrong: The War Against Ukraine and Security Studies.” Contemporary Security Policy 44(4): 494–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2023.2261298Ozili, P.K., 2022, Global Economic Consequence of Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Available online at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4064770(open in a new window)

Introduction Geopolitical tensions are making global trade increasingly difficult. In order to reduce the associated risk of default, companies are shifting their trade relations to trading partners that are politically similar to them. In the course of the beginnings of geo-economic fragmentation, politically and economically like-minded countries are also gaining in importance for German and European decision-makers. Liaison countries1 in particular can form a counterforce to the trend towards polarization in foreign trade - especially between the USA and China: they are characterized by a pronounced economic and trade policy openness that overrides differences between geopolitical or ideological camps. Consequently, the question arises: How can relevant connecting countries for Germany and Europe be identified? What opportunities and risks do closer trade relations with these countries offer in order to strengthen foreign trade resilience in geopolitically uncertain times?  With a high degree of openness - defined as the sum of imports and exports in relation to gross domestic product - of over 80 percent2 , the German economy is strongly integrated into global trade. Accordingly, the disruptive effect of geo-economic fragmentation on the German economy would be above average. The defensive strategy to strengthen Germany's economic security by pushing for trade policy independence would only reinforce geo-economic fragmentation. Against the backdrop of comparatively high economic vulnerability, it is necessary to focus on those potential partner countries with which German and European foreign trade could be developed and expanded even under the condition of increasing fragmentation.  Geoeconomic Fragmentation  The term "geo-economic fragmentation" is used to describe the politically motivated reorganization of global goods and financial flows, in which strategic, economic and political interests primarily determine the choice of countries of origin and destination for trade flows.3 In the scenario of geo-economic fragmentation, the result would be the formation of a bloc within the global community of states, which would fundamentally change the regulatory structure of global economic networking. In this case, trade and investment would probably concentrate from a previously diverse range of economic partner countries - prior to the formation of the bloc - on those countries that now - since the formation of the bloc - belong to the same bloc.  The likelihood of this scenario occurring and leading to an increased fragmentation of the global economic order has increased again in the recent past. For example, Donald Trump's second term as US president is causing increasing geopolitical uncertainty worldwide.  Statements on the concrete form of a possible demarcation of potential blocs are subject to a great deal of uncertainty. However, the division of a large part of the global economy into a "US bloc" and a "China bloc" is a conceivable scenario for which German politics and business should prepare.  Data already shows that, at a global level, foreign trade openness has decreased in the recent past. Data from the World Trade Organization (WTO) illustrates the increasing hurdles in global trade in goods. While 3.1% of global imports were still affected by tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade in 2016 - including under WTO rules - this figure rose to 11.8% in 2024 over the following years.4 This development goes hand in hand with a noticeable loss of importance and enforcement of the WTO since the 2010s, which previously played a central role as the guardian of the rules-based global economic order.  Studies by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have already found indications of an incipient geo-economic fragmentation along potential bloc borders. It shows that trade in goods and foreign direct investment between countries that would belong to the opposing camp in the event of a bloc formation declined on average in 2022 and 2023 - in contrast to foreign trade between countries that are geopolitically close.5  In this initial phase of geo-economic fragmentation, liaison countries are beginning to establish themselves as a counterforce, holding the fragmenting global community of states together with new trade and investment routes.  Identification of liaison countries Specifically, liaison countries have the following characteristics: a pronounced openness to foreign trade in the form of a high foreign trade quota and low tariff and non-tariff trade barriers, as well as pronounced economic relations with partner countries from different geopolitical camps. The geopolitical orientation of countries can be examined using data on voting behavior within the United Nations.6 This involves analyzing whether a country can be assigned to the US or Chinese camp - or whether there is no pronounced proximity and therefore political neutrality or "non-alignment" in the sense of ideological independence. The data-based identification of connecting countries is relatively new. Empirical analyses are also limited to connecting countries in the context of US-Chinese foreign trade - specifically US imports from China. In this case, the characteristics of a connecting country can be broken down into (1) "non-alignment" - i.e. a geopolitical distance to both a Western and an Eastern bloc - as well as (2) an increase in imports and foreign investment from China and (3) a simultaneous increase in exports to the United States. In a narrower sense, this is an evasive reaction to trade restrictions, i.e. circumventing trade. If the foreign trade indicators - specifically the trade and investment data relating to the US and China - of "non-aligned" countries for the period from 2017 to 2020 show corresponding characteristic-related changes compared to previous years, these can be identified as countries connecting the US and China.  The analysis of trade data shows that the value of direct exports from China to the USA fell during Donald Trump's first term in office. At the same time, both Chinese exports to some of the "non-aligned" countries and exports from these countries to the USA have increased significantly. These countries have presumably stepped in as a link on the export route from China to the US after the previously direct trade flow was interrupted by trade barriers and had to find a new route. Companies producing in China are therefore likely to have sought new, indirect ways to maintain access to the US sales market.  A certain statistical inaccuracy in the foreign trade data makes it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion in this context. It should be noted: No single commodity can be tracked across national borders in trade data collection. Whether the additional goods imported from China actually found their way to the United States can only be assumed approximately. However, if the trade flows are aggregated, a clearer picture emerges and the circumvention trade via selected connecting countries - including Vietnam and Mexico - becomes visible.  Data on foreign direct investment rounds off the analysis.7 "Non-aligned" countries in which an increase in Chinese investment can be seen between 2016 and 2020 in addition to trade flows can be identified as connecting countries. Here, too, available data suggests that the companies concerned either exported their goods to the United States via a stopover or even outsourced parts of their production destined for the US market to connecting countries. Five connecting countries between the US and China Based on the 2017-2020 study period, various connecting countries can be empirically identified that were used to indirectly maintain access to the US market. In terms of foreign trade volume, the economically most important connecting countries include Mexico, Vietnam, Poland, Morocco and Indonesia.8 All five countries are characterized by the fact that both their exports of goods to the US and their imports of goods from China increased significantly between 2017 and 2020. In addition, greenfield investments (foreign direct investment to set up a new production facility) have risen significantly compared to the period before 2017.  However, the five countries show different priorities in their development, which differentiate them in their role as connecting countries between the USA and China. In Vietnam, exports to the USA in particular have risen sharply. China has been the most important procurement market for Vietnamese companies for years. Poland, Mexico and Indonesia are characterized as connecting countries primarily by the significant increase in imports from China. Morocco, in turn, was able to attract more Chinese foreign investment in particular. Greenfield investments have almost tripled here since 2017. However, Poland - a rather surprising candidate for the role of liaison country, as it is intuitively assigned to the US-oriented bloc - is positioned fairly centrally between the US and China according to the analysis of voting behavior within the United Nations9. In addition, Poland qualifies primarily due to the sharp rise in greenfield investments from China, primarily in the expansion of domestic battery production.10  It cannot be concluded from the previous studies on the USA and China whether German companies are also circumventing trade barriers from the USA via the countries identified. As the trade policy conflicts between the US and China differ significantly from those between the EU and China, there has been a lack of comparable empirical data to analyze connecting countries in the EU context. Opportunities and challenges As the German economy is strongly oriented towards foreign trade and is closely networked with both the USA and China, German companies play a particularly exposed role in the area of tension between the USA and China. Increased economic exchange with potential connecting countries would offer German companies an opportunity to mitigate the expected shock of a geopolitical bloc. They could at least maintain international trade to a certain extent and thus secure some of the endangered sales and procurement markets. On the other hand, there are also costs associated with expanding foreign trade relations with potential connecting countries. The greater complexity also increases the risk in the value chains. Companies that position themselves wisely within this trade-off buy themselves valuable time in the event of a shock to reorganize themselves against the backdrop of changed foreign trade conditions.  From the perspective of foreign trade policy, it is also possible to examine the extent to which stronger foreign trade cooperation with (potential) connecting countries could have advantages. The trade-off between resilience and complexity must then be assessed at a macroeconomic level, beyond individual company interests. In order to make it easier for companies to connect to potential connecting countries and to create appropriate framework conditions, German and European policy can build on existing comprehensive strategies at national and European level. Both the China Strategy11 and the National Security Strategy12 focus foreign policy on connecting countries as part of a stronger economic and political risk diversification. There is also a similar framework at European level with the EU's Strategic Compass13 . Following on from this, the German government could create targeted incentives to open up new markets in liaison countries, which would diversify critical supply chains and reduce one-sided dependencies.  At the same time, connecting countries pose a challenge. These can be used to circumvent foreign trade measures such as sanctions if flows of goods can find alternative routes via connecting countries more easily than before.  In order to realize opportunities and overcome challenges, close cooperation between science, politics and companies is required. This first requires the identification of a selection of potential connecting countries through scientifically sound analysis. This creates the basis for the subsequent steps in which European and German policymakers work closely with companies to create attractive framework conditions for trade with potential connecting countries - for example through bilateral trade agreements.  Attractive foreign trade framework conditions can create the necessary incentive to actually expand trade relations with potential connecting countries. Companies need to weigh up individual cases and make forward-looking decisions: To what extent is there a risk of a loss of production triggered by geopolitical conflicts? And how much would the complexity of the value chain increase if more potential connecting countries were included? Ultimately, the actual choice of preferred sales and procurement markets lies with the individual companies. LicenseThis work is licensed under CC BY 4.0 References1. Verbindungsländer werden im Sinne von Connectors verstanden, vgl. Gita Gopinath/Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas/Andrea F Presbitero/Petia Topalova, Changing Global Linkages: A New Cold War?, Washington, D.C.: IMF, April 2024 (IMF Working Paper) <https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2024/04/05/Changing-Global-Linkages-A-New-ColdWar-547357/>. 2. Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), Außenwirtschaft. 2025, <https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Wirtschaft/Globalisierungsindikatoren/aussenwirtschaft.html#246 078/>.  3. Shekahar Aiyar/Franziska Ohnsorge, Geoeconomic Fragmentation and ‚Connector’ Countries, Online verfügbar unter:  <https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/121726/1/MPRA_paper_121726.pdf>.4. WTO, WTO Trade Monitoring Report, Genf, November 2024, <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/factsheet_dec24_e.pdf/>. 5. Gita Gopinath/Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas/Andrea F Presbitero/Petia Topalova, Changing Global Linkages: A New Cold War?, Washington, D.C.: IMF, April 2024 (IMF Working Paper) <https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2024/04/05/Changing-Global-Linkages-A-New-ColdWar-547357/>.  6. Michael A. Bailey/Anton Strezhnev/Erik Voeten, »Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data«, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61 (2017) 2, S. 430-456, <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002715595700/>.7. Gita Gopinath/Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas/Andrea F Presbitero/Petia Topalova, Changing Global Linkages: A New Cold War?, Washington, D.C.: IMF, April 2024 (IMF Working Paper) <https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2024/04/05/Changing-Global-Linkages-A-New-ColdWar-547357/>. War-547357. 8. Enda Curran/Shawn Donnan/Maeva Cousin, »These Five Countries are Key Economic ‚Connectors‘ in a Fragmenting World«, in Bloomberg (online), 1.11.2023, <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-1102/vietnam-poland-mexico-morocco-benefit-from-us-china-tensions/>.9. Michael A. Bailey/Anton Strezhnev/Erik Voeten, »Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data«, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61 (2017) 2, S. 430-456, <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002715595700/>.  10. Enda Curran/Shawn Donnan/Maeva Cousin, »These Five Countries are Key Economic ‚Connectors‘ in a Fragmenting World«, in Bloomberg (online), 1.11.2023, <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/202311-02/vietnam-poland-mexico-morocco-benefit-from-us-china-tensions/>.11. Auswärtiges Amt, China‐Strategie der Bundesregierung, Berlin, Juli 2023, <https://www.auswaertigesamt.de/resource/blob/2608578/810fdade376b1467f20bdb697b2acd58/china-strategie-data.pdf/>.  12. Auswärtiges Amt, Integrierte Sicherheit für Deutschland: Nationale Sicherheitsstrategie, Berlin, Juni 2023, <https://www.bmvg.de/resource/blob/5636374/38287252c5442b786ac5d0036ebb237b/nationalesicherheitsstrategie-data.pdf/>.  13. Rat der Europäischen Union, Ein Strategischer Kompass für Sicherheit und Verteidigung, Brüssel, März 2022, <https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7371-2022-INIT/de/pdf/>.

Abstract We examine the roles of Gold and Bitcoin as a hedge, a safe haven, and a diversifier against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the Ukraine War. Using a rolling window estimation of the dynamic conditional correlation (DCC)-based regression, we present a novel approach to examine the time-varying safe haven, hedge, and diversifier properties of Gold and Bitcoin for equities portfolios. This article uses daily returns of Gold, Bitcoin, S&P500, CAC 40, and NSE 50 from January 3, 2018, to October 15, 2022. Our results show that Gold is a better safe haven than the two, while Bitcoin exhibits weak properties as safe haven. Bitcoin can, however, be used as a diversifier and hedge. This study offers policy suggestions to investors to diversify their holdings during uncertain times. Introduction Financial markets and the diversity of financial products have risen in both volume and value, creating financial risk and establishing the demand for a safe haven for investors. The global financial markets have faced several blows in recent years. From the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) to the outbreak of the pandemic and uncertainty regarding economic policy measures of governments and central banks, the financial markets including equity markets around the world were faced with severe meltdowns. This similar behavior was observed in other markets including equity and commodity markets, resulting in overall uncertainty. In this scenario, the investors normally flock toward the safe-haven assets to protect their investment. In normal situations, investors seek to diversify or hedge their assets to protect their portfolios. However, the financial markets are negatively impacted when there are global uncertainties. Diversification and hedging methods fail to safeguard investors’ portfolios during instability because almost all sectors and assets are negatively affected (Hasan et al., 2021). As a result, investors typically look for safe-haven investments to safeguard their portfolios under extreme conditions (Ceylan, 2022). Baur and Lucey (2010) provide the following definitions of hedge, diversifier, and safe haven: Hedge: An asset that, on average, has no correlation or a negative correlation with another asset or portfolio. On average, a strict hedge has a (strictly) negative correlation with another asset or portfolio.Diversifier: An asset that, on average, has a positive correlation (but not perfect correlation) with another asset or portfolio. Safe haven: This is the asset that in times of market stress or volatility becomes uncorrelated or negatively associated with other assets or a portfolio. As was previously indicated, the significant market turbulence caused by a sharp decline in consumer spending, coupled with insufficient hedging opportunities, was a common feature of all markets during these times (Yousaf et al., 2022). Nakamoto (2008) suggested a remedy by introducing Bitcoin, a “digital currency,” as an alternative to traditional fiduciary currencies (Paule-Vianez et al., 2020). Bitcoin often described as “Digital Gold” has shown greater resilience during periods of crises and has highlighted the potential safe haven and hedging property against uncertainties (Mokni, 2021). According to Dyhrberg (2016), the GFC has eased the emergence of Bitcoin thereby strengthening its popularity. Bouri et al. (2017) in their study indicate that Bitcoin has been viewed as a shelter from global uncertainties caused by conventional banking and economic systems. Recent research has found that Bitcoin is a weak safe haven, particularly in periods of market uncertainty like the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis (Conlon & McGee, 2020; Nagy & Benedek, 2021; Shahzad et al., 2019; Syuhada et al., 2022). In contrast to these findings, a study by Yan et al. (2022) indicates that it can function as a strong safe haven in favorable economic times and with low-risk aversion. Ustaoglu (2022) also supports the strong safe-haven characteristic of Bitcoin against most emerging stock market indices during the COVID-19 period. Umar et al. (2023) assert that Bitcoin and Gold are not reliable safe-havens. Singh et al. (2024) in their study reveal that Bitcoin is an effective hedge for investments in Nifty-50, Sensex, GBP–INR, and JPY–INR, at the same time a good diversifier for Gold. The study suggests that investors can incorporate Bitcoin in their portfolios as a good hedge against market volatility in equities and commodities markets. During the COVID-19 epidemic, Barbu et al. (2022) investigated if Ethereum and Bitcoin could serve as a short-term safe haven or diversifier against stock indices and bonds. The outcomes are consistent with the research conducted by Snene Manzli et al. (2024). Both act as hybrid roles for stock market returns, diversifiers for sustainable stock market indices, and safe havens for bond markets. Notably, Bhuiyan et al. (2023) found that Bitcoin provides relatively better diversification opportunities than Gold during times of crisis. To reduce risks, Bitcoin has demonstrated a strong potential to operate as a buffer against global uncertainty and may be a useful hedging tool in addition to Gold and similar assets (Baur & Lucey, 2010; Bouri et al., 2017; Capie et al., 2005; Dyhrberg, 2015). According to Huang et al. (2021), its independence from monetary policies and minimal association with conventional financial assets allow it to have a safe-haven quality. Bitcoins have a substantial speed advantage over other assets since they are traded at high and constant frequencies with no days when trading is closed (Selmi et al., 2018). Additionally, it has been demonstrated that the average monthly volatility of Bitcoin is higher than that of Gold or a group of international currencies expressed in US dollars; nevertheless, the lowest monthly volatility of Bitcoin is lower than the maximum monthly volatility of Gold and other foreign currencies (Dwyer, 2015). Leverage effects are also evident in Bitcoin returns, which show lower volatilities in high return periods and higher volatilities in low return times (Bouri et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2017). According to recent research, Bitcoins can be used to hedge S&P 500 stocks, which increases the likelihood that institutional and retail investors will build secure portfolios (Okorie, 2020). Bitcoin demonstrates strong hedging capabilities and can complement Gold in minimizing specific market risks (Baur & Lucey, 2010). Its high-frequency and continuous trading further enrich the range of available hedging tools (Dyhrberg, 2016). Moreover, Bitcoin spot and futures markets exhibit similarities to traditional financial markets. In the post-COVID-19 period, Zhang et al. (2021) found that Bitcoin futures outperform Gold futures.Gold, silver, palladium, and platinum were among the most common precious metals utilized as safe-haven investments. Gold is one such asset that is used extensively (Salisu et al., 2021). Their study tested the safe-haven property of Gold against the downside risk of portfolios during the pandemic. Empirical results have also shown that Gold functions as a safe haven for only 15 trading days, meaning that holding Gold for longer than this period would result in losses to investors. This explains why investors buy Gold on days of negative returns and sell it when market prospects turn positive and volatility decreases (Baur & Lucey, 2010). In their study, Kumar et al. (2023) tried to analyse the trends in volume throughout futures contracts and investigate the connection between open interest, volume, and price for bullion and base metal futures in India. Liu et al. (2016) in their study found that there is no negative association between Gold and the US stock market during times of extremely low or high volatility. Because of this, it is not a strong safe haven for the US stock market (Hood & Malik, 2013). Post-COVID-19, studies have provided mixed evidence on the safe-haven properties of Gold (Bouri et al., 2020; Cheema et al., 2022; Ji et al., 2020). According to Kumar and Padakandla (2022), Gold continuously demonstrates safe-haven qualities for all markets, except the NSE, both in the short and long term. During the COVID-19 episode, Gold’s effectiveness as a hedge and safe-haven instrument has been impacted (Akhtaruzzaman et al., 2021). Al-Nassar (2024) conducted a study on the hedge effectiveness of Gold and found that it is a strong hedge in the long run. Bhattacharjee et al. (2023) in their paper examined the symmetrical and asymmetrical linkage between Gold price levels and the Indian stock market returns by employing linear autoregressive distributed lag and nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag models. The results exhibit that the Indian stock market returns and Gold prices are cointegrated. According to the most recent study by Kaczmarek et al. (2022), Gold has no potential as a safe haven, despite some studies on the COVID-19 pandemic showing contradictory results. The co-movements of Bitcoin and the Chinese stock market have also normalized as a result of this epidemic (Belhassine & Karamti, 2021). Widjaja and Havidz (2023) verified that Gold was a safe haven asset during the COVID-19 pandemic, confirming the Gold’s safe-haven characteristic. As previously pointed out, investors value safe-haven investments in times of risk. Investors panic at these times when asset prices fall and move from less liquid (risky) securities to more liquid (safe) ones, such as cash, Gold, and government bonds. An asset must be bought and sold rapidly, at a known price, and for a reasonably modest cost to be considered truly safe (Smales, 2019). Therefore, we need to properly re-examine the safe-haven qualities of Gold and Bitcoin due to the mixed evidences regarding their safe-haven qualities and the impact of COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine on financial markets. This work contributes to and deviates from the body of existing literature in the following ways. We propose a novel approach in this work to evaluate an asset’s time-varying safe haven, hedge, and diversifier characteristics. This research examines the safe haven, hedging, and diversifying qualities of Gold and Bitcoin against the equity indices; S&P 500, CAC 40, and NSE 50. Through the use of rolling window estimation, we extend the methodology of Ratner and Chiu (2013) by estimating the aforementioned properties of the assets. Comparing rolling window estimation to other conventional techniques, the former will provide a more accurate representation of an asset’s time-varying feature. This study explores the conventional asset Gold’s time-varying safe haven, hedging, and diversifying qualities during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine. We use Bitcoin, an unconventional safe-haven asset, for comparison. Data and Methodology We use the daily returns of three major equity indices; S&P500, CAC 40, and NSE 50 from January 3, 2018, to October 15, 2022. The equity indices were selected to represent three large and diverse markets namely the United States, France, and India in terms of geography and economic development. We assess safe-haven assets using the daily returns of Gold and Bitcoin over the same time. Equity data was collected from Yahoo Finance, Bitcoin data from coinmarketcap.com, and Gold data from the World Gold Council website. Engle (2002) developed the DCC (Dynamic Conditional Correlation)-GARCH model, which is frequently used to assess contagion amid pandemic uncertainty or crises. Time-varying variations in the conditional correlation of asset pairings can be captured using the DCC-GARCH model. Through employing this model, we can analyse the dynamic behavior of volatility spillovers. Engle’s (2002) DCC-GARCH model contains two phases; 1. Univariate GARCH model estimation2. Estimation of time-varying conditional correlation. For its explanation, mathematical characteristics, and theoretical development, see here [insert the next link in “the word here” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09711023251322578] Results and Discussion The outcomes of the parameters under the DCC-GARCH model for each of the asset pairs selected for the investigation are shown in Table 1.   First, we look at the dynamical conditional correlation coefficient, ρ.The rho value is negative and insignificant for NSE 50/Gold, NSE 50 /BTC, S&P500/Gold, and S&P500/BTC indicating a negative and insignificant correlation between these asset pairs, showing Gold and Bitcoin as potential hedges and safe havens. The fact that ρ is negative and significant for CAC 40/Gold suggests that Gold can be a safe haven against CAC 40 swings. The asset pair CAC/BTC, on the other hand, has possible diversifier behavior with ρ being positive but statistically insignificant. Next, we examine the behavior of the DCC-GARCH parameters; α and β. We find that αDCC is statistically insignificant for all the asset pairs, while βDCC is statistically significant for all asset pairs. βDCC quantifies the persistence feature of the correlation and the extent of the impact of volatility spillover in a particular market’s volatility dynamics. A higher βDCC value implies that a major part of the volatility dynamics can be explained by the respective market’s own past volatility. For instance, the NSE 50/Gold’s βDCC value of 0.971 shows that there is a high degree of volatility spillover between these two assets, with about 97% of market volatility being explained by the assets’ own historical values and the remainder coming from spillover. Thus, we see that the volatility spillover is highly persistent (~0.8) for all the asset pairs except NSE 50/BTC. The results above show that the nature of the dynamic correlation between the stock markets, Bitcoin and Gold is largely negative, pointing toward the possibility of Gold and Bitcoin being hedge/safe haven. However, a detailed analysis is needed to confirm the same by employing rolling window analysis, and we present the results in the forthcoming section. We present the rolling window results for S&P500 first. We present the regression results for Gold in Figure 1 and Bitcoin in Figure 2   Figure 1. Rolling Window Regression Results for S&P500 and Gold.Note: Areas shaded under factor 1 represent significant regression coefficients. In Figure 1, we examine the behavior of β0 (intercept term), β1, β2, and β3 (partial correlation coefficients). The intercept term β0 will give an idea about whether the asset is behaving as a diversifier or hedge. Here, the intercept term shows significance most of the time. However, during 2018, the intercept was negative and significant, showing that it could serve as a hedge during geopolitical tensions and volatilities in the global stock market. However, during the early stages of COVID-19, we show that the intercept is negative and showing statistical significance, suggesting that Gold could serve as a hedge during the initial shocks of the pandemic. These findings are contrary to the results in the study by Tarchella et al. (2024) where they found hold as a good diversifier. Later, we find the intercept to be positive and significant, indicating that Gold could act as a potential diversifier. But during the Russia-Ukraine War, Gold exhibited hedge ability again. Looking into the behavior of β1, which is the partial correlation coefficient for the tenth percentile of return distribution shows negative and insignificant during 2018. Later, it was again negative and significant during the initial phases of COVID-19, and then negative in the aftermath, indicating that Gold could act as a weak safe haven during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gold could serve as a strong safe haven for the SP500 against volatility in the markets brought on by the war in Ukraine, as we see the coefficient to be negative and large during this time. From β2 and β3, the partial correlation coefficients of the fifth and first percentile, respectively, show that Gold possesses weak safe haven properties during COVID-19 and strong safe haven behavior during the Ukraine crisis. Next, we examine the characteristics of Bitcoin as a hedge/diversifier/safe haven against the S&P500 returns. We present the results in Figure 2.   Figure 2. Rolling Window Regression Results for S&P500 and Bitcoin.Note: Areas shaded under factor 1 represent significant regression coefficients. Like in the previous case, we begin by analysing the behavior of the intercept coefficient, which is β0. As mentioned earlier the intercept term will give a clear picture of the asset’s hedging and diversifier property. In the period 2018–2019, the intercept term is positive but insignificant. This could be due to the large volatility in Bitcoin price movements during the period. It continues to be minimal (but positive) and insignificant during 2019–2020, indicating toward weak diversification possibility. Post-COVID-19 period, the coefficient shows the significance and positive value, displaying the diversification potential. We see that the coefficient remains positive throughout the analysis, confirming Bitcoin’s potential as a diversifier. Looking into the behavior of β1 (the partial correlation coefficient at tenth percentile), it is positive but insignificant during 2018. The coefficient is having negative sign and showing statistical significance in 2019, suggesting that Bitcoin could be a good safe haven in that year. This year was characterized by a long list of corporate scandals, uncertainties around Brexit, and tensions in global trade. We can observe that throughout the COVID-19 period, the coefficient is showing negative sign and negligible during the March 2020 market meltdown, suggesting inadequate safe-haven qualities. However, Bitcoin will regain its safe-haven property in the coming periods, as the coefficient is negative and significant in the coming months. The coefficient is negative and shows statistical significance during the Ukrainian crisis, suggesting strong safe-haven property. Only during the Ukrainian crisis could Bitcoin serve as a safe haven, according to the behavior of β2, which displays the partial correlation coefficient at the fifth percentile. Bitcoin was a weak safe haven during COVID-19 and the Ukrainian crisis, according to β3, the partial correlation coefficient for the first percentile (coefficient negative and insignificant). According to the overall findings, Gold is a stronger safe haven against the S&P 500’s swings. This result is consistent with the previous studies of Triki and Maatoug (2021), Shakil et al. (2018), Będowska-Sójka and Kliber (2021), Drake (2022), and Ghazali et al. (2020), etc. The same analysis was conducted for the CAC 40 and the NSE 50; the full analysis can be found here [insert the next link in “the word here” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09711023251322578]. However, it is important to highlight the respective results: In general, we may say that Gold has weak safe-haven properties considering CAC40. We can conclude that Bitcoin’s safe-haven qualities for CAC40 are weak. We can say that Gold showed weak safe-haven characteristics during the Ukraine crisis and good safe-haven characteristics for the NSE50 during COVID-19. We may say that Bitcoin exhibits weak safe haven, but strong hedging abilities to NSE50. Concluding Remarks In this study, we suggested a new method to evaluate an asset’s time-varying hedge, diversifier, and safe-haven characteristics. We propose a rolling window estimation of the DCC-based regression of Ratner and Chiu (2013). Based on this, we estimate the conventional asset’s time-varying safe haven, hedging, and diversifying properties during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine. For comparison purposes, we include Bitcoin, a nonconventional safe-haven asset. We evaluate Gold and Bitcoin’s safe haven, hedging, and diversifier properties to the S&P 500, CAC 40, and NSE 50 variations. We use a rolling window of length 60 to estimate the regression. From the results, we find that Gold can be considered as a better safe haven against the fluctuations of the S&P 500. In the case of CAC 40, Gold and Bitcoin have weak safe-haven properties. While Bitcoin demonstrated strong safe-haven characteristics during the Ukraine crisis, Gold exhibited strong safe-haven characteristics during COVID-19 for the NSE 50. Overall, the findings indicate that Gold is the better safe haven. This outcome is consistent with earlier research (Będowska-Sójka & Kliber, 2021; Drake, 2022; Ghazali et al., 2020; Shakil et al., 2018; Triki & Maatoug, 2021). When it comes to Bitcoin, its safe-haven feature is weak. Bitcoin, however, works well as a diversifier and hedge. Therefore, from a policy perspective, investing in safe-haven instruments is crucial to lower the risks associated with asset ownership. Policymakers aiming to enhance the stability of financial portfolios might encourage institutional investors and other market players to incorporate Gold into their asset allocations. Gold’s strong safe-haven qualities, proven across various market conditions, make it a reliable choice. Gold’s performance during crises like COVID-19 highlights its potential to mitigate systemic risks effectively. Further, Bitcoin could also play a complementary role as a hedge and diversifier, especially during periods of significant volatility such as the Ukraine crisis. While Bitcoin’s safe-haven characteristics are relatively weaker, its inclusion in a diversified portfolio offers notable value and hence it should not be overlooked. Further, policymakers may consider how crucial it is to monitor dynamic correlations and periodically rebalance portfolios to account for shifts in the safe haven and hedging characteristics of certain assets. Such measures could help reduce the risks of over-reliance on a single asset type and create more resilient portfolios that can better withstand global economic shocks. For future research, studies can be conducted on the estimation of the rolling window with different widths. This is important to understand how the safe-haven property changes across different holding periods. Further, more equity markets would be included to account for the differences in market capitalization and index constituents. This study can be extended by testing these properties for multi-asset portfolios as well. We intend to take up this study in these directions in the future. Data Availability StatementNot applicable.Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.FundingThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.ReferencesAkhtaruzzaman M., Boubaker S., Lucey B. M., & Sensoy A. (2021). Is gold a hedge or a safe-haven asset in the COVID-19 crisis? Economic Modelling, 102, 105588. Crossref. Web of Science.Al-Nassar N. S. (2024). Can gold hedge against inflation in the UAE? A nonlinear ARDL analysis in the presence of structural breaks. PSU Research Review, 8(1), 151–166. Crossref.Barbu T. C., Boitan I. A., & Cepoi C. O. (2022). Are cryptocurrencies safe havens during the COVID-19 pandemic? A threshold regression perspective with pandemic-related benchmarks. Economics and Business Review, 8(2), 29–49. Crossref.Baur D. G., & Lucey B. M. (2010). Is gold a hedge or a safe haven? An analysis of stocks, bonds and gold. Financial Review, 45(2), 217–229. Crossref.Będowska-Sójka B., & Kliber A. (2021). Is there one safe-haven for various turbulences? The evidence from gold, Bitcoin and Ether. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, 56, 101390. Crossref.Belhassine O., & Karamti C. (2021). Contagion and portfolio management in times of COVID-19. Economic Analysis and Policy, 72, 73–86. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Bhattacharjee A., Das J., & Kumar S. (2023). Evaluating the symmetrical and asymmetrical linkage between gold price and Indian stock market in the presence of structural change. NMIMS Management Review, 31(4), 288–297. Crossref. Web of Science.Bhuiyan R. A., Husain A., & Zhang C. (2023). Diversification evidence of Bitcoin and Gold from wavelet analysis. Financial Innovation, 9(1), 100. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Bouri E., Azzi G., & Dyhrberg A. H. (2017). On the return-volatility relationship in the Bitcoin market around the price crash of 2013. Economics, 11(1), 2. Crossref.Bouri E., Gupta R., Tiwari A. K., & Roubaud D. (2017). Does Bitcoin hedge global uncertainty? Evidence from wavelet-based quantile-in-quantile regressions. Finance Research Letters, 23, 87–95. Crossref. Web of Science.Bouri E., Shahzad S. J. H., Roubaud D., Kristoufek L., & Lucey B. (2020). Bitcoin, gold, and commodities as safe havens for stocks: New insight through wavelet analysis. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 77, 156–164. Crossref. Web of Science.Brenner M., & Galai D. (1989). New financial instruments for hedge changes in volatility. Financial Analysts Journal, 45(4), 61–65. Crossref.Capie F., Mills T. C., & Wood G. (2005). Gold as a hedge against the dollar. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 15(4), 343–352. Crossref.Ceylan Ö. (2022). Hedging Effectiveness of the VIX ETPs: An analysis of the time-varying performance of the VXX. In Handbook of research on new challenges and global outlooks in financial risk management (pp. 384–401). IGI Global. Crossref.Cheema M. A., Faff R., & Szulczyk K. R. (2022). The 2008 global financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic: How safe are the safe haven assets? International Review of Financial Analysis, 83, 102316. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Conlon T., & McGee R. (2020). Safe haven or risky hazard? Bitcoin during the COVID-19 bear market. Finance Research Letters, 35, 101607. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Demir E., Gozgor G., Lau C. K. M., & Vigne S. A. (2018). Does economic policy uncertainty predict the Bitcoin returns? An empirical investigation. Finance Research Letters, 26, 145–149. Crossref. Web of Science.Drake P. P. (2022). The gold-stock market relationship during COVID-19. Finance Research Letters, 44, 102111. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Dwyer G. P. (2015). The economics of Bitcoin and similar private digital currencies. Journal of Financial Stability, 17, 81–91. Crossref. Web of Science.Dyhrberg A. H. (2015). Hedging capabilities of bitcoin. Is it the virtual gold? Finance Research Letters, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2015.10.025Dyhrberg A. H. (2016). Hedging capabilities of bitcoin. Is it the virtual gold? Finance Research Letters, 16, 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2015.10.025 Web of Science.Engle R. (2002). Dynamic conditional correlation: A simple class of multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(3), 339–350. Crossref. Web of Science.Ghazali M. F., Lean H. H., & Bahari Z. (2020). Does gold investment offer protection against stock market losses? Evidence from five countries. The Singapore Economic Review, 65(02), 275–301. Crossref.Hasan M. B., Hassan M. K., Rashid M. M., & Alhenawi Y. (2021). Are safe haven assets really safe during the 2008 global financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic? Global Finance Journal, 50, 100668. Crossref. PubMed.Hood M., & Malik F. (2013). Is gold the best hedge and a safe haven under changing stock market volatility? Review of Financial Economics, 22(2), 47–52. Crossref.Huang Y., Duan K., & Mishra T. (2021). Is Bitcoin really more than a diversifier? A pre-and post-COVID-19 analysis. Finance Research Letters, 43, 102016. Crossref.Ji Q., Zhang D., & Zhao Y. (2020). Searching for safe-haven assets during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Review of Financial Analysis, 71, 101526. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Kaczmarek T., Będowska-Sójka B., Grobelny P., & Perez K. (2022). False safe haven assets: Evidence from the target volatility strategy based on recurrent neural network. Research in International Business and Finance, 60, 101610. Crossref. Web of Science.Kumar A. S., & Padakandla S. R. (2022). Testing the safe-haven properties of gold and bitcoin in the backdrop of COVID-19: A wavelet quantile correlation approach. Finance Research Letters, 47, 102707. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Kumar M. A., Swathi J., Pallavi T. A., & Bavana S. (2023). Volume progression and price–volume relationship of commodity futures: Case of bullion and base metals. NMIMS Management Review, 31(4), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/09711023241230463 Web of Science.Liu C. S., Chang M. S., Wu X., & Chui C. M. (2016). Hedges or safe havens—Revisit the role of gold and USD against stock: A multivariate extended skew-t copula approach. Quantitative Finance, 16(11), 1763–1789. Crossref.Liu R., Zhichao S., Wei G., & Wang W. (2017). GARCH model with fat-tailed distributions and Bitcoin exchange rate returns. Journal of Accounting, Business and Finance Research, 1(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3666106 Crossref.Mokni K. (2021). When, where, and how economic policy uncertainty predicts Bitcoin returns and volatility? A quantiles-based analysis. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 80, 65–73. Crossref.Nagy B. Z., & Benedek B. (2021). Higher co-moments and adjusted Sharpe ratios for cryptocurrencies. Finance Research Letters, 39, 101543. Crossref. Web of Science.Nakamoto S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Bitcoin. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfOkorie D. I. (2020). Could stock hedge Bitcoin risk(s) and vice versa? Digital Finance, 2(1), 117–136. Crossref.Paule-Vianez J., Prado-Román C., & Gómez-Martínez R. (2020). Economic policy uncertainty and Bitcoin. Is Bitcoin a safe-haven asset? European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 29(3), 347–363. Crossref.Ratner M., & Chiu C. C. J. (2013). Hedging stock sector risk with credit default swaps. International Review of Financial Analysis, 30, 18–25. Crossref. Web of Science.Salisu A. A., Raheem I. D., & Vo X. V. (2021). Assessing the safe haven property of the gold market during COVID-19 pandemic. International Review of Financial Analysis, 74, 101666. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Saxena S., & Villar A. (2008). Hedging instruments in emerging market economies. Financial globalisation and emerging market capital flows. BIS Papers, 44, 71–87.Selmi R., Mensi W., Hammoudeh S., & Bouoiyour J. (2018). Is Bitcoin a hedge, a safe haven or a diversifier for oil price movements? A comparison with gold. Energy Economics, 74, 787–801. Crossref. Web of Science.Shahzad S. J. H., Bouri E., Roubaud D., Kristoufek L., & Lucey B. (2019). Is Bitcoin a better safe-haven investment than gold and commodities? International Review of Financial Analysis, 63, 322–330. Crossref. Web of Science.Shakil M. H., Mustapha I. H. M., Tasnia M., & Saiti B. (2018). Is gold a hedge or a safe haven? An application of ARDL approach. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 23(44), 60–76. Crossref.Singh V. V., Singh H., & Ansari A. (2024). Bitcoin as a distinct asset class for hedging and portfolio diversification: A DCC-GARCH model analysis. NMIMS Management Review, 32(1), 7–13. Crossref. Web of Science.Smales L. A. (2019). Bitcoin as a safe haven: Is it even worth considering? Finance Research Letters, 30, 385–393. Crossref. Web of Science.Snene Manzli Y., Alnafisah H., & Jeribi A. (2024). Safe haven ability of energy and agricultural commodities against G7 stock markets and banking indices during COVID-19, Russia–Ukraine War, and SVB collapse: Evidence from the wavelet coherence approach. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2024(1), 2587000. Crossref.Syuhada K., Suprijanto D., & Hakim A. (2022). Comparing gold’s and Bitcoin’s safe-haven roles against energy commodities during the COVID-19 outbreak: A vine copula approach. Finance Research Letters, 46, 102471. Crossref. PubMed. Web of Science.Tarchella S., Khalfaoui R., & Hammoudeh S. (2024). The safe haven, hedging, and diversification properties of oil, gold, and cryptocurrency for the G7 equity markets: Evidence from the pre-and post-COVID-19 periods. Research in International Business and Finance, 67, 102125. Crossref. Web of Science.Triki M. B., & Maatoug A. B. (2021). The GOLD market as a safe haven against the stock market uncertainty: Evidence from geopolitical risk. Resources Policy, 70, 101872. Crossref. Web of Science.Umar Z., Bossman A., Choi S. Y., & Teplova T. (2023). The relationship between global risk aversion and returns from safe-haven assets. Finance Research Letters, 51, 103444. Crossref. Web of Science.Ustaoglu E. (2022). Safe-haven properties and portfolio applications of cryptocurrencies: Evidence from the emerging markets. Finance Research Letters, 47, 102716. Crossref. Web of Science.Widjaja M., & Havidz S. A. H. (2023). Are gold and cryptocurrency a safe haven for stocks and bonds? Conventional vs Islamic markets during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Management and Business Economics (ahead-of-print).Yan Y., Lei Y., & Wang Y. (2022). Bitcoin is a safe-haven asset and a medium of exchange. Axioms, 11(8), 415. Crossref.Yousaf I., Plakandaras V., Bouri E., & Gupta R. (2022). Hedge and safe haven properties of gold, US Treasury, Bitcoin, and Dollar/CHF against the FAANA companies and S&P 500 (Department of Economics, Working Paper Series No. 2022–27). University of Pretoria.Zhang Y., Zhu P., & Xu Y. (2021). Has COVID-19 changed the hedge effectiveness of bitcoin? Frontiers in Public Health, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.704900

Economic relations between Russia and China remain high. Beijing has become Moscow's most important trading partner, and in the context of Western sanctions, it has also become an alternative source of industrial and consumer goods, as well as the largest market for Russian energy and other raw materials. At the same time, external political factors may have a growing influence on Russian-Chinese economic relations. These include the trade war between China and the United States, a possible escalation of US sanctions against Russia, and the expansion of secondary sanctions by the European Union against Chinese companies. The trade war, in the form of increased import duties on imported goods, has become one of the calling cards of Donald Trump's second term in office. The executive order he issued on April 2, 2025, provided a detailed conceptual justification for such a policy. The main goal is the reindustrialisation of the United States through the return or transfer of industrial production to the territory of the US, as well as an equalization of the trade balance with foreign countries. The basic part of Trump's order concerned all countries throughout the world and assumes a tariff increase of 10%. It goes on to determine individual duties on the goods of more than 70 countries, with its own sets for each. China became one of the few countries which decided to mirror the tariff increases. This led to a short-lived and explosive exchange of increases in duties. While it was suspended by negotiations between the two countries in Geneva, it was not removed from the agenda. In the US trade war “against the whole world”, China remains a key target. This is determined by the high level of the US trade deficit in relations with China, which has persisted for more than 40 years. Apparently, it remained comfortable for the US until China made a noticeable leap in the field of industrial and technological development. Such a leap allowed China to gradually overcome its peripheral place in the global economy, displace American and other foreign goods from the domestic market, and occupy niches in foreign markets. Despite the critically important role of American components, patents and technological solutions in a number of industries, China has managed to reduce its dependence on them. The growing industrial and technological power of the PRC is becoming a a political problem for the US. It was clearly identified during the first term of Trump's presidency. Even then, the US pursued a course toward the technological containment of China. Despite the temporary respite in the trade war, US pressure on China will remain. The tariff policy may be supplemented by restrictive new measures (sanctions) in the field of telecommunications and other industries. During the new term of Donald Trump's presidency, the politicisation of issues that the Biden administration avoided putting at the forefront of US-Chinese relations began again. These include the problem of Hong Kong autonomy and the issue of ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China. Both issues received a high level of politicisation during Trump's first term. The US-China trade war has so far had little effect on Russian-Chinese relations. The increase in US tariffs has had virtually no effect on Russia. Russia is already facing a significant number of restrictive measures, and the volume of trade with the United States has been reduced to near zero since the start of Moscow’s Special Military Operation in 2022. However, Russia may feel the effects of the trade war. For example, the United States may require China to purchase American energy resources as a measure to correct the trade balance. Obviously, such a measure is unlikely to solve the imbalance. However, it has the potential to affect the volume of Russian oil supplies to China in one way or another. In addition, the trade war as a whole may affect oil prices downwards, which is also disadvantageous for Russia. On the other hand, Russia is a reliable supplier of energy resources for China, which will not politicise them. Even in the context of new aggravations of the trade war, China is unlikely to refuse Russian supplies. Another factor is US sanctions against Russia. After the start of Russian-American negotiations on Ukraine in 2025, Washington avoided using new sanctions, although all previously adopted restrictive measures and their legal mechanisms are in force. However, Donald Trump failed to carry out a diplomatic blitzkrieg and achieve a quick settlement. The negotiations have dragged on and may continue for a long time. If they fail, the United States is ready to escalate sanctions again. Existing legal mechanisms allow, for example, for an increase in the list of blocked persons, including in relation to Chinese companies cooperating with Russia. This practice was widely used by the Biden administration. It was Chinese companies that became the key target of US secondary sanctions targeting Russia. They fell under blocking financial sanctions for deliveries of industrial goods, electronics and other equipment to Russia. However, there was not a single large company among them. We were talking about small manufacturing companies or intermediary firms. At the same time, the Biden administration managed to significantly complicate payments between Russia and China through the threat of secondary sanctions. US Presidential Executive Order 14114 of December 22, 2023 threatened blocking sanctions against foreign financial institutions carrying out transactions in favour of the Russian military-industrial complex. In practice, such sanctions against Chinese financial institutions were practically not applied, except for the blocking of several Chinese payment agents in January 2025. However, the very threat of secondary sanctions forced Chinese banks to exercise a high level of caution in transactions with Russia. This problem has not yet been fully resolved. New legal mechanisms in the field of sanctions, which are being worked on in the United States, may also affect Russian-Chinese relations. We are talking about the bill introduced by US Senator Lindsey Graham and several other senators and members of congress. Their bill assumes that in the event of failure of negotiations with Russia on Ukraine, the US executive branch will receive the authority to impose 500% duties on countries purchasing Russian raw materials, including oil. China may be among them. This threat should hardly be exaggerated for now. The passage of the bill is not predetermined. Even if it is signed into law, the application of 500% tariffs against China will be an extremely difficult matter. Recent rounds of the trade war have shown that China is ready for retaliatory measures. However, the emergence of such a norm will in any case increase the risks for business and may negatively affect Russian suppliers of raw materials. Another factor is EU sanctions policy. Unlike the US, the EU continues to escalate sanctions against Russia despite the negotiations on Ukraine. Brussels is expanding the practice of secondary sanctions, which also affect Chinese companies. In the context of a deepening economic partnership between China and the EU, this factor seems significant. However, in reality, it will play a peripheral role. The EU's practice of secondary sanctions is still significantly more limited than the American one. It does not affect any significant Chinese companies. Problems may be created by the expansion of EU bans on the provision of financial messaging services for Russian banks—this will affect their relations with Chinese counterparties. But such bans stimulate the acceleration of the use of the Chinese CIPS payment system by Russians, which has the functionality of transmitting financial messages. Compared to the US, the EU policy factor remains secondary. First published in the Valdai Discussion Club.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском AbstractPurpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the international political economy of Korea and its effects due to geopolitical tension between China and the USA. Design/methodology/approach Economic war between China and the USA has prolonged longer than expected. Aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, reforming the supply chain has been the centre of economic tension between China and the USA. Quite recently, with the rapid expansion of Chinese e-commerce platforms, distribution channels come upon a new economic tension between the two. And now is the time to pivot its pattern of conflict from competition into cooperation. In this end, economic diplomacy could be a useful means to give a signal of cooperation. From the view of economic diplomacy, this paper tries to analyse the projected transition of economic war between China and the USA with its implication on the trade policy of Korea. Findings As an implementation of economic diplomacy, China suggested the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), enhancing trade logistics among related countries to gain competitiveness. In 2023, the Biden administration suggested the India-Middle East and Europe Economic Corridor as a counter to BRI, which will be a threshold for changing trade policy from economic war into economic diplomacy. As a result, it is expected China and the USA will expand their economic diplomacy in a way to promote economic cooperation among allied states, while the distribution channel war would continue to accelerate the economic tension between China and the USA. Korea has to prepare for and provide measures handling this geopolitical location in its trade policy or economic diplomacy. Originality/value This research contributes to the awareness and understanding of trade environments from the perspective of economic diplomacy. 1. Introduction The advent of globalisation has led to widespread economic integration, creating global production networks and markets. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a significant setback to this trend. In the wake of COVID-19, an economic war has arisen between China and the USA, centred on the restructuring of global supply chains following widespread disruptions. International political economy (IPE) examines the power dynamics between states and the structures of influence within regional economies. Consequently, economic diplomacy has gained unprecedented attention. Economic diplomacy focuses on government actions regarding international economic issues, distinct from political diplomacy through its market-oriented approach in foreign policy. Putnam (1988) categorises economic diplomacy into two levels: unilateralism and bilateralism. Unilateral economic diplomacy (or unilateralism) often relies on hard power, involving decisions on trade liberalisation or market protection without negotiation. Bilateral economic diplomacy (or bilateralism) or multilateral economic diplomacy (or multilateralism), by contrast, involves negotiation among trade partners, resulting in agreements such as regional or global free trade agreements (FTAs). A vast range of state or non-state actors engage in economic diplomacy, navigating the complex interplay between international and domestic factors. Defining economic diplomacy is extremely challenging, but one useful definition is “the broad concept of economic statecraft, where economic measures are taken in the pursuit of political goals, including punitive actions such as sanctions” (Blanchard and Ripsman, 2008).  Figure 1 Recent trend of economic diplomacy To exert influence internationally, ministers and heads of government strive to demonstrate their capacity for national security through two primary approaches, as shown in Figure 1 (above): economic war (or competition) and economic diplomacy (or international cooperation). In the context of global supply chain restructuring, the economic conflict between China and the USA has intensified, marked by threats of supply chain disruptions. This has led to emerging strategies aimed at “crowding out” the USA from global supply chains (去美戰略) or excluding China through alliances such as the Allied Supply Chain and Chip 4. While economic war is inherently “temporary” due to its painstaking nature, economic diplomacy or international cooperation offer a more “long-term” approach because it is gains-taking. This paper analyses the factors contributing to the prolonged nature of this economic war and explores potential outcomes of the supply chain tensions between China and the USA from the perspectives of IPE or geo-economics. In conclusion, it highlights the importance of preparing for trade policy adjustments and strategic economic diplomacy. 2. International trade war and strategic items2.1 Supply chain The supply chain encompasses a network of interconnected suppliers involved in each stage of production, from raw materials and components to the finished goods or services. This network can include vendors, warehouses, retailers, freight stations and distribution centres. Effective supply chain management is a “crucial process because an optimised supply chain results in lower costs and a more efficient production cycle” [1]. Within the supply chain, a leading company typically holds governance power, enabling it to coordinate scheduling and exercise control across the interconnected suppliers, resulting in reduced costs and shorter production times (Gereffi et al., 2005) [2]. Since the 2000s, forward and backward integration have been key strategies for managing time, cost and uncertainty in supply chains. For example, Toyota’s Just-In-Time (JIT) system demonstrated the efficiency of locally concentrated supply chains until disruptions from the 2011 East Japan Earthquake and the Thailand flood. Following supply chain shutdowns in 2020, many businesses shifted from local to global supply chains, utilising advancements of the information technology (IT) and transportation technologies to geographically diversify operations. As the need for a systematically functioning global supply chain has grown, a leading nation, much like a leading company, often assumes governance power in international trade and investment, as illustrated in Figure 2 (below), by aligning with the leadership of a dominant market competitiveness, which makes this leadership valuable.  Figure 2 Supply chain The COVID-19 pandemic dealt a severe blow to the global supply chain, causing sudden lockdowns that led to widespread supply chain disruptions. To mitigate the risks of future global disruptions, supply chains have begun restructuring to operate on a more regionally segmented basis. In this shift toward regional supply chains, China and the USA are at the centre, drawing allied countries within their spheres of influence. This alignment helps explain why the economic war between China and the USA has lasted longer than anticipated. 2.2 Strategic items China has restricted exports of two rare metals, gallium and germanium, which are critical to semiconductor production. Kraljic (1983) highlighted the importance of managing “strategic items” within the framework of supply chain management, as shown in Figure 3. Kraljic emphasises the need to strengthen and diversify critical items. The Kraljic matrix provides a valuable tool for identifying essential items that require focused management within the supply chain.  Figure 3 Kraljic matrix Kraljic identified the importance of managing “bottleneck items” in strategic supply chain management – items that present high supply risk but have relatively low business value. Due to the potential costs associated with non-delivery or compromised quality of strategic items, these must be closely monitored and controlled. From a risk management perspective, establishing medium-term business relationships and collaboration with suppliers is essential. For example, South Korea imports over 90% of its urea for agricultural and industrial purposes from China [3]. Heavily dependent on China for urea supplies due to pricing factors, Korea faced challenges when China imposed export controls on urea, underscoring Korea’s vulnerability within China’s sphere of influence. The European Union (EU) also faces challenges with critical raw materials (CRMs). China remains the EU’s sole supplier of processed rare earth elements, while Chile supplies 79% of its lithium. In response, the EU introduced the CRM Act (CRMA) to support projects aimed at increasing “the EU’s capacity to extract, process, and recycle strategic raw materials and diversify supplies from the third countries” [4]. 2.3 Resilient supply chain alliance In contrast to China’s approach of leveraging supply disruptions to strengthen its influence, the Biden administration in the USA has adopted a cooperative approach focused on building resilient supply chains (Pillar 2) through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), which includes 14 member countries [5]. The need for resilient supply chains has been further underscored by the Russia–Ukraine crisis. The IPEF aims to address supply chain vulnerabilities by fostering global efforts to reduce risks associated with concentrated, fragile supply chains [6].  Figure 4 Resilient supply chain alliance In Figure 4, the EU Commission presented the Single Market Emergency Instrument (SMEI) in September 2022, a crisis governance framework designed to ensure the availability of essential goods and services during future emergencies. The SMEI operates on three levels: contingency planning, vigilance and emergency. The contingency planning phase focuses on collaboration among member states to mitigate supply chain disruption and monitor incidents. The vigilance phase can be activated when a significant disruption is anticipated, enabling specific measures such as mapping and monitoring supply chains and production capacities. Finally, the emergency phase is activated in cases of severe disruption to the functioning of the single market [7]. Establishing a resilient supply chain through international cooperation may be appealing, yet the reality often falls short of the ambition. In South Korea, the IPEF took effect on 17 April 2024, after an extended negotiation process, marking the first multilateral agreement on supply chains. As a result, during non-crisis periods, the 14 member countries will collaborate to strengthen international trade, investment and trade logistics. In times of crisis, member countries will activate a “crisis response network”. Conversely, opportunities for negotiation with China, South Korea’s largest trading partner, are essential for building supply chain resilience [8]. China has pursued an industrial policy focused on enhancing its supply chain management capabilities. In the semiconductor sector, the decoupling between China and the USA has become increasingly evident. Contrary to expectations, China has adopted a policy of internalising its supply chains, returning to the integration strategies of the 2000s rather than furthering globalisation. A promising opportunity for transformation between the two countries has emerged recently. Since 2015, China and South Korea have maintained bilateral FTA, and with the second phase of FTA negotiations currently underway, there is an opportunity to strengthen trade and investment ties, fostering positive progress through international cooperation. 2.4 China manufacturing exodus During the COVID-19 pandemic, China imposed sudden lockdowns without prior notice or preparation, halting production and logistics cycles. This “zero COVID” policy may have triggered a shift towards “de-risking” China from supply chain disruptions. Although China still offers significant advantages as “the factory of the world,” with vast market potential, prolonged trade tensions with the USA, intensified during the Trump administration, have prompted global manufacturers with substantial USA market bases to relocate operations amid rising geopolitical uncertainties. For example, Nike and Adidas have shifted much of their footwear manufacturing to Vietnam, Apple has begun iPhone production at a Foxconn in Chennai, India, and AstraZeneca has contracted production with India’s Serum Institute. In the pre-globalised era, defining the Rule of Origin (ROO) was straightforward, as a product’s components were usually manufactured and assembled within a single country. However, with the complexity of global supply chains, particularly since 2012, determining ROO has become a time-consuming and subjective process. ROO are classified as either non-preferential or preferential. The USA applies non-preferential ROO to restrict imports from countries like Cuba, Iran and North Korea, while offering trade preference programmes for others. Preferential ROO are used to determine duty-free eligibility for imports from approved countries [9], whereas non-preferential ROO play a crucial role in “country of origin labelling, government procurement, enforcement of trade remedy actions, compilation of trade statistics, supply chain security issues.” [10] China manufacturing exodus may negatively impact capital inflows into Hong Kong, traditionally seen as the Gateway to China. In 2023, Hong Kong’s initial public offering volume fell to a 20-year low of $5.9bn [11]. While China-oriented business remains in Hong Kong, which returns fully to Chinese control in 2047, non-China-oriented businesses have migrated to Singapore. As the certainty of contract and ownership rights forms the foundation of capitalism, this capital flight from Hong Kong is likely to persist. 3. Trade logistics and economic corridors Globalisation has allowed supply chains to leverage interdependence and interconnectedness, maximising efficiency. However, while these efficiencies have been beneficial, they have also created a fertile ground for friction between trade partners due to a “survival of the fittest” mindset and the principle of “winner takes all.” This interdependence has also highlighted vulnerabilities; the global supply chain struggled to manage the disruptions caused by COVID-19, prompting a shift towards regional integration initiatives, such as Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement and Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. As the global economy seeks stability, collaboration over competition has become increasingly essential, with economic diplomacy emerging as a priority. The prolonged economic war between China and the USA arguably needs to shift towards economic diplomacy. The global supply chain is restructuring into regional supply chains, building resilience by operating in regional segments that can withstand crises. Michael Porter introduced the concept of value chain as “a set of activities that a firm performs to deliver a valuable product or service to the market.” [12] Complex finished goods often depend on global value chains, traversing multiple countries. As shown in Figure 5, the value chain consists of supply chain and trade channel components. While the focus has traditionally been on which country holds lead status within a regional supply chain, the emphasis is now shifting to how these regional segments can be interconnected and relayed. In this context, the supply chain competition may evolve into a “channel war” in international trade, where trade logistics will centre on the internal flow of goods, standardising channel processes and establishing authority over these channels.  Figure 5 Supply chain v. trade channel 3.1 Trade logistics It is natural for governments to seek environments that enhance competitiveness within in their countries. In terms of trade, effective trade logistics are essential for maintaining competitive advantage. As a prerequisite, a strong IT management infrastructure is indispensable. As shown in Figure 6, trade logistics encompass the internal flow of goods to market, integrating physical infrastructure with operating software – such as transport hubs, warehouses, highways, ports, terminals, trains and shipping vessels. Key areas of conflict in trade logistics involve the standardisation of channel processes and determining who holds governance over operation of these logistics systems. This is equally relevant within the digital economy. Recently, Chinese e-commerce – often referred to as C-commerce – has aggressively sought to gain control over digital distribution channels, interconnected delivery networks and trade logistics via digital platforms. Chinese platforms such as Taobao, Temu and AliExpress are actively working to increase their monthly active users (MAUs), positing themselves as counterweights to USA-based platforms such as Amazon and eBay in digital trade [13].  Figure 6 Trade logistics When the agenda of establishing international trade logistics is introduced to relevant trade members across various countries, initial progress and effective responses are often achieved. However, efforts soon encounter obstacles related to standardising logistics processes and establishing operational governance. Greater reliance on international institutions could help resolve these issues (Bayne, 2017). Yet governments frequently prioritise domestic interests, and after prolonged negotiations, the risk of international agreements failing increases. Amid the economic war between China and the USA, China launched a trade logistics initiative known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), or One Belt One Road, in 2013. Often referred to as the New Silk Road, the BRI aims to establish economic corridors for trade logistics. The World Bank estimates that the BRI could boost trade flows by 4.1% and reduce trade costs by 1.1% [14]. In response, the Biden administration proposed the India-Middle East and Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) in September 2023 to strengthen transport and communication links between Europe and Asia as a countermeasure to China’s BRI. IMEC has been well received by participating countries, with expectations of fostering economic growth, enhancing connectivity and potentially rebalancing trade and economic relations between the EU and China [15]. Both BRI and IMEC are ambitious projects aimed at boosting international trade through substantial investments in trade logistics infrastructure. Each seeks to assert governance over international trade channels, signalling that the supply chain war may soon evolve into a trade channel war between China and the USA. 3.2 Economic corridors Economic corridors are transport networks designed to support and facilitate the movement of goods, services, people and information. These corridors often include integrated infrastructure, such as highways, railways and ports, linking cities or even countries (Octaviano and Trishia, 2014). They are typically established to connect manufacturing hubs, high-supply and high-demand areas, and producers of value-added goods. Economic corridors comprise both hard infrastructure – such as trade facilities – and soft infrastructure, including trade facilitation and capacity-building measures. The Asian Development Bank introduced the term “economic corridor” in 1998 to describe networks connecting various economic agents within a region [16]. Economic corridors are integrated trade logistics networks, providing essential infrastructure for connecting regional segments of supply chains. As supply chains increasingly operate in regional “chunks,” linking these segments becomes ever more important. Economic corridors typically include a network of transport infrastructure, such as highways, railways, terminals and ports. Initiatives like the BRI and IMEC use economic corridors as instruments of economic diplomacy, shifting strategies from hard power to soft power, as shown in Figure 7. Because less-developed or developing countries often lack sufficient funding to invest in trade logistics, they tend to welcome these initiatives from developed countries, which offer international collaboration and support. However, these initiatives usually come with the condition that participating countries must accept standardised trade processes and governance led by the sponsoring developed country.  Figure 7 Economic corridor initiatives as economic diplomacy To succeed, economic corridors must meet three key conditions [17]. First, government intervention is essential, as economic corridor initiatives primarily involve public infrastructure investments beyond the scope of the private sector. In realising these projects, governments must reconcile three tensions to ensure their policies are mutually supportive: tensions between politics and economics, between international and domestic pressures and between governments and other stakeholders. Second, intermediate outcomes should be measured and demonstrated as results of economic corridors, allowing participants to experience tangible benefits throughout these longer-term projects. Finally, economic corridors should deliver broader benefits. Participants need incentives to utilise the infrastructure sustainably. These benefits may extend beyond economic welfare, such as wages and income, to include social inclusion, equity and environmental gains, which support the long-term viability of the infrastructure. 4. BRI vs IMEC4.1 Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) - Silk Road The BRI can be a modern-day realisation of the Silk Road concept, connecting Europe as a market base with China as a production base. Unlike the ancient Silk Road, which connected trade routes across Eurasia, the BRI poses potential challenges due to its extensive connectivity. Firstly, there are social and environmental externalities, such as increased congestion and accidents from concentrating traffic flows through limited links and nodes within trade networks. Secondly, while the connectivity may benefit the production and market bases at either end, regions situated between these hubs, through which highways and railways pass, may gain minimal advantage. Thirdly, there is often a mismatch between where costs and benefits are realised. Transit regions that facilitate network traffic often see fewer direct benefits compared to high-density nodes within the network. 4.2 India-Middle East and Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) - The Spice Road The ancient Spice Roads once connected the Middle East and Northeast Africa with Europe, facilitating the exchange of goods such as cinnamon, ginger, pepper and cassia, which, like silk, served as a form of currency. The IMEC proposes a modern route from India to Europe through the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Israel and Greece. Since its announcement in September 2023, some regional experts have expressed reservations about its feasibility, particularly regarding the connection between the Middle East and Israel. The project has faced delays due to the Israel–Hamas war. Despite these challenges, IMEC holds potential to drive economic growth and strengthen connectivity, especially as countries like Vietnam and India emerge as alternative manufacturing bases for companies relocating from China. For Saudi Arabia and the UAE, IMEC is not viewed as a challenge to China but rather as an opportunity to diversify their economies and solidify their roles within the Middle East region [18]. 5. Conclusion A new trade war between China and the USA has begun, with the Biden Administration’s introduction of IMEC as a counter to China’s BRI. This shift could soon transform the nature of economic war from a focus on supply chains to one on trade channels. The China manufacturing exodus was further accelerated by supply disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Amidst the economic tensions between China and the USA, the restructuring of global supply chains into regional networks has made significant progress. With China maintaining its stance on export controls for strategic items, South Korea must prepare for resilient supply chain management. In relation to China–Korea FTA, which is currently undergoing its second phase of negotiation, South Korea should seek clarity on the transparency of China’s strategic item controls. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) plays a key role in monitoring the quality of inbound investments; similarly, South Korea is experiencing increased inbound investment due to the manufacturing shift from China and should apply similar standards to evaluate investment quality. This emerging economic war between China and the USA is now marked by the competing initiatives of the BRI and IMEC. The BRI can be viewed as a modern Silk Road, linking China with Europe, while the IMEC seeks to establish a trade logistics corridor connecting Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel and Greece. The South Korean Government should take proactive steps to prepare for the evolving dynamics of the trade war between China and the USA. CitationOh, J.S. (2025), "International trade war - Spice Road against Silk Road", International Trade, Politics and Development, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 2-11. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITPD-06-2024-0031  Notes 1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/supplychain.asp2. According to Gary Gereffi et al, 5 governance types of a lead company could be categorised as market, modular, relational, captive and hierarchy.3. Korea imports urea from 12 countries including Qatar, Vietnam, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, in addition to China.4. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/areas-specific-interest/critical-raw-materials/strategic-projects-under-crma_en5. IPEF was launched on May 23,2022 at Tokyo. 14 member countries are Australia, Brunei, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and the USA. 4 Pillar of IPEF are Trade (Pillar 1), Supply Chain (Pillar 2),Clean Economy (Pillar 3) and Fair Economy (Pillar 4).6. Critics say “lack of substantive actions and binding commitments, instead focusing on process-driven framework building.” https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/its-time-ipef-countries-take-action-supply-chain-resilience7. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_54438. As of 2023, the first-largest trade partner of Korea is China (Trade volume of $267.66bn), the second is the US ($186.96bn) and the third is Vietnam ($79.43bn)9. As preferential ROO contain the labour value content requirement in the USMCA, it could increase compliance costs for importers. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL3452410. USITC(1996), Country of Origin Marking: Review of Laws, Regulations and Practices, USITC Publication 2975, July, pp. 2–411. https://www.barrons.com/articles/hong-kong-financial-center-china-46ba5d3612. Porter identifies a value chain broken in five primary activities: inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, marketing and sales and post-sale services. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/journals/concepts_approaches_in_gvc_research_final_april_18.pdf13. MAU is a metric commonly used to identify the number of unique users who engage with apps and website. MAU is an important measurement to the level of platform competitiveness in the digital trade logistics or e-commerce industry.14. https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2019/12/china-belt-and-road-initiative-and-the-global-chemical-industry.html15. https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2023/10/the-india-middle-east-europe-economic-corridor-prospects-and-challenges-for-us-businesses16. The Asian Development Bank (ADB), which first used the term in 1998, defines economic corridors as important networks or connections between economic agents along a defined geography, which link the supply and demand sides of markets. http://research.bworldonline.com/popular-economics/story.php?id=350&title=Economic-corridors-boost-markets,-living-conditions17. Legovini et al. (2020) comments traditional cross border agreements of transport investment focuses only on a narrow set of direct benefits and cost. However, economic corridors can entail much wider economic benefits and costs such as trade and economic activity, structural change, poverty reduction, pollution and deforestation.18. Arab Centre Washington D.C. https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-geopolitics-of-the-india-middle-east-europe-economic-corridor/ References Bayne, N. (2017), Challenge and Response in the New Economic Diplomacy, 4th ed., The New Economic Diplomacy, Routledge, London, p. 19.Blanchard, J.M.F. and Ripsman, N.M. (2008), “A political theory of economic statecraft”, Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 4, pp. 371-398, doi: 10.1111/j.1743-8594.2008.00076.x.Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J. and Sturgeon, T. (2005), “The governance of value chain”, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 78-104, doi: 10.1080/09692290500049805.Kraljic, P. (1983), “Purchasing must be supply management”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61 No. 5, September.Legovini, A., Duhaut, A. and Bougna, T. (2020), “Economic corridors-transforming the growth potential of transport investments”, p. 10.Octaviano, B.Y. and Trishia, P. (2014), Economic Corridors Boost Markets, Living Conditions, Business World Research, Islamabad, October.United States International Trade Commission (USITC) (1996), “Country of origin marking: Review of Laws, Regulations, and Practices”, USITC Publication, Vol. 2975, July, pp. 2-4.Further readingPorter, M. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press.Putman, R.D. (1988), “Diplomacy and domestic politics; the logic of two-level games”, International Organization, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 427-600.USITC (2019), “Global value chain analysis: concepts and approaches”, Journal of International Commerce and Economics, April, pp. 1-29.